Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

TUC

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he expects to meet leaders of the Trades Union Congress.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): At the National Economic Development Council on 5 March.

Mr. Sheerman: When the right hon. Gentleman does meet them, I hope that he will be able to inform them that he has seen the folly of running the industrial strategy on a basis that even his own colleagues are describing as out-of-date 0-level economics. I hope that he will be able to say to the TUC that he is now willing to approach these matters afresh and to have an industrial strategy based on co-operation and Government action rather than covert confrontation and inaction.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) said "I hope" I assumed that he was really saying "Will the Minister".

Mr. Lang: When my right hon Friend next meets the leaders of the TUC, will he point out to them the utterly lunatic and self-defeating nature of the proposed one-day general strike?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that such a one-day general strike will not be thought to have any value and, therefore, will not occur.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Industry,

accept any responsibility whatever for maintaining a steel industry and an industrial base upon which Britain depends, and has depended historically, in peace and war? Will he indicate clearly whether he thinks that that is his responsibility, or whether he has totally abdicated responsibility for the security of our industry?

Sir. K. Joseph: I do not think it is my responsibility to recommend to my colleagues that taxpayers should be asked to pay money towards higher earnings for steel workers who are in a position to earn more for themselves. It is in the interests of the steel workers that the industry should get back to work as quickly as possible.

Steel Industry (Productivity)

Mr. Allan Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the current level of productivity in the British steel industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): The latest available information indicates that productivity in the first 10 months of 1979 remained low compared with other major European countries.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. As the British Steel Corporation has made it clear that by improving productivity steel workers may earn substantial pay increases, does my hon. Friend not think that it is now time, as the steel strike enters its third month, for the BSC's offer to be put to steel workers in a ballot?

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the crucial argument about productivity. The issue of a ballot is for the BSC management to decide in consultation with the trade unions. We would welcome a move in that direction.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that British steel workers are already the cheapest in Europe? When heavy redundancies are proposed in areas such as South Wales and other steel-making areas, the Government must appreciate that steel workers and the communities in which they live are not prepared to go back to the 1930s. Is that where the Secretary of State is trying to drive them?

Mr. Marshall: The Government are fully aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is because of that that we have recently provided £48 million, which we hope will help to overcome the short-term problems. However, that will not overcome the problems of getting the industry right, and that process must go ahead.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that demand for a ballot is growing in the public sector, reinforced by what has happened in the private sector, and that steel workers would like the opportunity of making plain their views? However much they may admire the moderation of Mr. Sirs, is my hon. Friend aware that they are not impressed by his competence?

Mr. Marshall: I note what my hon. Friend says. This is an issue that must be settled between the management and the trade unions. The move towards a ballot is one that I am sure the House will wish to support.

Mr. John Silkin: Since the Minister is making comparisons with our European competitors, will he take two things into account? The first is that the sector working party which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commended said there was no real basis for a comparison of productivity with European competitors. Secondly, our European competitors are receiving subsidies, for example, on coking coal and also from the contributions that Britain has made to the European Coal and Steel Community which amount to over £60 million more than we have received from it.

Mr. Marshall: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about what we have received from the Community. The Government will seek every opportunity to take advantage of whatever is made available and studies are in hand on that matter. On the question of comparisons, he should remember that the key statistic which was agreed by both the management and trade unions which were taking part in the exercise to which he refers showed that in man hours taken to produce one tonne of steel, the figure for BSC, regretfully, was between 70 per cent. and 100 per cent. greater than that of our major European competitors.

Mr. John Silkin: But that was only one factor out of many, as the hon. Gentleman knows. What was said at that time, as the hon. Gentleman also well knows, was that labour productivity in any event was only one out of a number of factors to be taken into consideration. However, I am not talking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question".] I am not asking about the justice of contributions I am referring to the fact that there are subsidies to our competitors which affect our productivity. What will he and his colleagues do about that?

Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman tends to flog a dead horse on this matter. The German industry has to pay for coking coal at world prices. The balance by which industries are supported differs from one country to another and no one can deny that our steel industry has been given massive support over recent years.

Inner Cities

Mr. Peter Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what contribution the Government's measures to encourage small businesses will make to the economic revival of inner cities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): The Government are pursuing a number of policies designed to help small firms, wherever they may be located. Special assistance is available in certain inner city areas through local authorities under the urban programme.

Mr Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell the House what has happened to the proposal for enterprise zones in which bureaucracy and red tape were to be cut to a minimum and the enterprising people were to be able to devote all their energies to being enterprising?

Mr. Mitchell: The matter of specific enterprise zones is still under study. So far as the general concept is concerned, we wish to convert the whole country into one.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the hon. Gentleman examined the success of the Industrial Co-ownership Organisation and the Cooperative Development Agency? Is there


anything that he can do to help his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and myself, who are trying to recreate the inner city industrial area of Park Roy al in my constituency and his by encouraging small business development on the principle of those two bodies?

Mr. Mitchell: The Government are continuing to give the co-operative development authority assistance. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific constituency interest, I should be happy to hear from him on it.

Mr. Chapman: In recognition of the importance of small businesses in the regeneration of our inner city areas, is my hon. Friend prepared to consult with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to see if it is possible to abolish the rate charges on empty properties in these areas? They are a significant hindrance to attracting business in those areas.

Mr. Mitchell: l shall draw my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of the Environment.

Dr. John Cunningham: Are not all these matters peripheral to the real difficulties that are facing small businesses, which are highly over-valued sterling, a minimum lending rate of 17 per cent. and VAT at 15 per cent.—all conscious decisions of this Government?

Mr. Mitchell: The level of sterling is not a conscious decision of the Government but is a matter of the operation of market forces. The MLR is a consequence of the over-high Government spending programmes which we inherited from our predecessors.

National Girobank

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will meet the unions and representatives of those employed in Giro, in order to discuss Giro's future role in the reorganisation of the Post Office.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Ministers in the Department of Industry have already had consultations with the unions concerned, including those in the National Girobank, about our proposals for the reorganisation of the Post Office. My right hon.

Friend expects that further consultations will take place as appropriate.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit Bootle and Giro to see for himself what is happening there to allay some of the fears and anxieties of the work force? That work force wish to know where they will be placed in the new reorganised Post Office corporation—whether with the telecommunications section or the Post Office section. They also wish to know whether the present status of a bank will be maintained and whether the privileges in legislation that were given in 1977—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is very important to the workers at Giro. They also want to know whether future expansion of Giro will take place on Merseyside.

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have noted the invitation to visit Bootle. In September, we announced that the Post Office would be split into two corporations, one for telecommunications and one for post and Girobank. That position remains unchanged. Provided that Girobank continues to compete on equal terms with those offering equivalent facilities, there is no reason to doubt its future.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the substantial question about the desirability of loading Girobank into the Post Office with all the appalling consequences upon industrial relations which the Post Office will face? Is there not something to be said for the obvious solution of hiving off Girobank to the private sector?

Mr. Marshall: I note what my hon. Friend says. At the present time, the relationship between Girobank and the Post Office is interlaced within the Post Office counter service facility.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister look into the Government banking services and see if more efficient use can be made of Girobank by Government Departments? For instance, will he look at how often Government Departments put out their banking business to tender, with particular reference to the role of the Paymaster General's office? Will he see if some rationalisation could be of benefit both to Girobank and Government Departments?

Mr. Marshall: I believe that I have heard the hon. Gentleman on this subject before. It is up to Girobank to compete on equal terms with others who provide similar facilities.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Race: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further measures he will introduce to increase the rate of investment in manufacturing industry.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): The Government will maintain their policy of establishing the right economic framework for investment and enterprise.

Mr. Race: Is the Minister aware that according to the latest CBI industrial trend survey, 42 per cent. of firms said that they would be spending less in the next 12 months on investment on new plant and machinery than in the last 12 months? What will the Minister do about that? When will the results of the so-called incentives policy come through to fruition?

Mr. Butler: We believe that the results are coming through already. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that we are facing a period of world-wide economic stagnation. One way to attack that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in answer to a previous question, is to try to get down the public sector demands on the economy so that there are more funds available for private investment, thereby reducing interest rates, which are another difficulty.

Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just levels of investment that are important—indeed, firms can suffer from too much investment as BSC has shown over the last 15 years—but many other matters should be taken into account, such as levels of manning and productivity?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is quite right. The first priority is to use the investment properly. Secondly, we must ensure that there is a profitable return on that investment and any future investment.

Dr. John Cunningham: With reference to investment in the public sector, will

the Minister explain, in view of his assurances during the last debate on the ship building industry, why the national environmental research council's order is being placed abroad and not with British Shipbuilders?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman should put down a separate question on that point. It does not arise on the question on the order paper.

Mr. Forman: Is it not also a question of the under-use of existing manufacturing capacity? Would it not help if manufacturers had a reasonable prospect in the forthcoming Budget of a better return on investment?

Mr. Butler: It is true that the present return on investment is disastrously low in real terms. One of the features of recent years has been that the profits that business has retained—or that it has been allowed to retain—have been too low.

Mr. Anderson: Given the real return on capital, the prohibitively high interest rates and the reduction in public expenditure, where does the Minister expect that new investment to come from? Bearing in mind the consequences of Government policy in areas such as South Wales, when will the Government reassess regional development policies in those areas?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has already mentioned that the Government are prepared to put £48 million into South Wales in order to cope with some of the consequences of running down the steel industry. Otherwise, the money has to come from resources that are available to the economy as a whole. That is why we place such emphasis on reducing the demands of the public sector on those resources.

Post Office

Mr. John Browne: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to complete his review of the Post Office's mail service monopoly powers.

Mr. Adam Butler: My right hon Friend has received the reports which he asked for by the end of last year and is considering them. He will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Browne: Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on his basic willingness to open the post and telephone services of the present monopoly to competition from private enterprise? Will he consider that proposal in the light of the Rayner recommendations and the special problems that sub-post offices may face?

Mr. Butler: As regards telecommunications, my right hon. Friend has made the Government's position clear in principle. We hope to liberalise the monopoly. We have an open mind about the postal side. That is the purpose of the reports that we have asked for. I assure my hon. Friend that the postal monopoly is not inviolate.
I do not expect any change in the monopoly to affect the position of the sub-post office network. If the network is likely to be affected, we shall take that consideration into account.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Does not the Minister understand that there is a connection between the derogation of the monopoly in the London area and the fate of post offices in other parts of the country? Conservative Members should understand that. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, does he realise that many of those from sub-post offices who came to lobby the House last Wednesday were not reassured by his remarks during the debate on the previous evening?

Mr. Butler: This question does not directly arise from the monopoly. I attended the lobby in Westminster Central Hall. The question of monopoly was not raised. Judging by the reception given at the end of my remarks, and those of my right hon. Friend, the sub-post masters and sub-post mistresses were satisfied.

South Yorkshire

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to assist the creation of new jobs in South Yorkshire.

Mr. David Mitchell: The Government's policies are designed to encourage industrial expansion and employment. South Yorkshire, with the exception of the Sheffield travel-to-work-area (TTWA), is to remain an assisted area, while we have made Mexborough and Rotherham TTWAs development areas.

Mr. Wainwright: The Minister has not said anything about providing jobs. Is he not aware that we have made Mexborough a development area? However, the Manvers Main coking plant is threatened with closure. That will mean the loss of 580 jobs. The present rate of unemployment is about 11 per cent. When will jobs be provided? What is the good of giving an area development status, if it does not provide jobs or reduce unemployment?

Mr. Mitchell: It is not the Government's job to provide employment. It is our job to create the circumstances and the climate in which industry can provide them.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that rather than provide jobs, the obtuse attitude of the Government towards the steel industry will destroy jobs in Sheffield? If the Government persist with that policy, there will be an urgent need for development assistance.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to damage being done to future jobs in the steel industry as a result of the continuance of the strike, we all understand the direct relationship between an ongoing dispute—called by the steel union—and the future security of jobs.

Industrial Progress

Mr. Radice: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with industrial progress.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Of course we are not satisfied with industrial progress. Whilst the Government have made a good start on getting the right climate for economic growth, it will take time for their policies to be fully implemented and to take effect.

Mr. Radice: In view of the appalling industrial problems that face all parts of the country, including the Northern region, and in view of growing evidence that the Government's policies are irrelevant, is it not time for the Government to change their policies, or to resign?

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has fallen back on a standard party political line today. He usually takes a serious interest in these matters. He must recognise that there is a time Ian between


the creation of the right economic policies and the new investment that we expect.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that although many of the heavy engineering industries are declining, parts of the communications industry—from large computers to microprocessors —are growing and expanding? In some cases we lead the world. Will he press his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to accede to the request on the Order Paper for an early debate? The industry will provide many job opportunities. It will also provide growth and wealth for the future.

Mr. Marshall: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's general analysis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will no doubt wish to consider that question very carefully.

Mr. John Silkin: Will the Minister kindly tell us what industrial progress the Government have made during the past nine months

Mr. Marshall: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to be helpful. We have reduced controls on prices, dividends and foreign exchange. We have begun a shift from public to private opportunities, in order to create growth. Those factors take time. However, the framework has been established.

Mr. McCrindle: Would not our industrial progress be greatly advanced if the hapless Mr. Len Murray and the rest of the TUC were persuaded that, whatever else we need to impress the outside world, a one-day strike on 14 May can only do harm?

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. We all share the view that that strike will do no good to the industrial cause of this country.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister look at the profits that banks make as a result of Government policies? Will he also ask the banks where they are investing that money? It is a windfall from the present Government.

Mr. Marshall: I am willing to look at that issue, if the hon. Gentleman is willing to look at the return on capital that banks are now obtaining. In general banking terms, those returns are not excessive. As long as that money comes back into the

system—as it will increasingly do—it will have been usefully earned and spent.

Steel Industry

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, what proposals he has received from the British Steel Corporation for hiving off its major non-steel making activities.

Mr. Adam Butler: These are matters for the Corporation.

Mr. Hooley: Surely the Minister accepts that the Government have some responsibility for the affairs of the corporation? Does he agree that if the subsidiary activities of the BSC are hived off, the financial situation will worsen? If it is proper for private corporations to indulge in miscellaneous activities, why is it wrong for a public corporation to do so?

Mr. Butler: The BSC may have to sell some of its assets because it must behave as a private sector company would behave in that position. If it needs to finance its own expenditure or losses, it may have to sell assets.

Mr. Adley: Perhaps BSC will decide that it does not wish to continue production at Consett, for example. Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that, where private enterprise is prepared to buy and continue production, BSC will not be allowed to hinder such a sale?

Mr. Butler: The statutory position is that we cannot tell BSC to sell Consett or any other steel works. I am happy to give the assurance that Ministers will not stand in the way of the disposal of Con-sett to the private sector.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Minister aware of any discussions between the British Steel Corporation and the private sector about the disposal of BSC's special steels activities? Does he agree that would have serious implications for British industry, including our defence industry? May we have an assurance that such sales will not be allowed to proceed?

Mr. Butler: I am not aware of any such discussions.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the steel dispute.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have been keeping the House informed about the strike, and I shall be continuing to make statements as the need arises.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the longer the strike goes on and the longer it takes to start the furnaces after the strike, the greater will be the import penetration immediately after the strike? Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of that import penetration will be maintained? As from today, what longer-term market share will the British Steel Corporation lose as a result of the strike and can the Secretary of State translate that into the number of jobs lost?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree that the longer the strike continues the greater will be the import penetration. I cannot begin to guess what effect the strike, let alone a longer strike, will have on the market share of the British Steel Corporation. I hope that the steel workers are alive to the dangers.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does not the Secretary of State's non-intervention policy increasingly appear to be self-wounding, short-sighted and stiff-necked? Have not the cash limits already been exceeded by the cost of the strike? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he must intervene to safeguard the whole of the British economic base?

Sir K. Joseph: The cash limits for next year no doubt have been exceeded by the strike apart from other causes. That makes it essential for the British Steel Corporation to break even by all possible means. That includes disposals an attack on overheads and stocks and by every other means available to management as well as, of course, a further loss of jobs if that is necessary.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon Friend aware that many BSC employees in my constituency, some of whom I saw on Saturday, do not wish to remain on strike and ask why they cannot be allowed to negotiate locally?

Sir K. Joseph: Many of us would prefer local negotiations to centralised negotiations. That is not a decision for Ministers. It is a decision for management and the unions which normally cooperate. I hope that my hon. Friend is

right in thinking that many of the workers would prefer a different arrangement.

Mr. John Silkin: Since steel is central to all the core industries—shipbuilding, engineering, motor car and coal—is not the size of the the steel industry of vital importance? If that is so, why does the Secretary of State take as gospel the forecasts and objectives of the British Steel Corporation which has not exactly earned gold medals for forecasting in the past? Why does not the Secretary of State set up an independent inquiry into the proper size of the steel industry? In the meantime, why does he not abandon his rigid and disruptive rundown timetable?

Sir K. Joseph: Whatever the British Steel Corporation's record in forecasting it cannot conceivably be as bad as the forecasts of successive Governments who over-expanded the industry. The decline in demand for British steel is related to BSC prices and, alas, quality and delivery at a time when world demand for steel is at a record level. The right hon. Gentleman refers to core industries. A number of those to which he referred, including the car and shipbuilding industries, have declined. Their lower demand for British Steel Corporation supplies is caused by their failure to become competitive. The issues are related.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend, either now or later, refer to the private steel industry, where workers have been called out although there is no dispute? Will he explain how they are affected and what are the prospects for those companies and the people who work in them?

Sir K. Joseph: A number of those who work in the private steel sector are well aware of the dangers to the companies for which they work and to their future jobs if they come out on strike. I hope that they will make their own decisions.

Mr. Urwin: Bearing in mind the understandable and justifiable rejection by the steel unions of the original 2 per cent. offer and recognising that the strike could have been ended six weeks ago if the Minister had intervened at the 8 per cent. level, does he agree that he should now intervene before the bidding reaches a higher level?

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman is mis-stating the original offer, which I understand was 2 per cent. plus a substantial increase through higher productivity of about 10 per cent. The original offer was about 12 per cent.

Petrochemical Complexes

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the United Kingdom content of plant and equipment in those petrochemical complexes at present under planning consideration.

Mr. David Mitchell: Orders for a substantial amount of plant and equipment have still to be placed. The client companies are aware of the importance that my right hon. Friend attaches to British companies being given a full and fair opportunity to bid for these contracts and of the advantages of United Kingdom supply. United Kingdom suppliers have represented to us their intention to compete vigorously for the work.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he means by "substantial" in the context of his reply? Will he press the company to do an exercise similar to that done by Shell on the Auk platform to show, after the event, exactly what is the United Kingdom content of the projects at Moss Morran and Brae-foot Bay?

Mr. Mitchell: No purchasing decision for the Esso chemical installation has yet been reached. Shell completed most of its purchasing some time ago. The few remaining orders will be placed shortly. It is likely that 90 per cent. of the total expenditure on that plant will be on United Kingdom goods and services. About three-quarters of the contracts for materials and equipment will be placed in this country. The hon. Gentleman's second question was interesting and constructive. I shall certainly examine his idea.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important issue for industry in West Central Scotland? Will he assure us that the Scottish Office will be fully involved in further consultations?

Mr. Mitchell: The Scottish Office is always fully involved in our discussions.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if, in the light of the subsidies paid on the abortive contract for limestone to Amey Roadstone Ltd., intended for Llanwern Steelworks, he will ensure that future subsidies to the British Steel Corporation are earmarked to specific projects approved by him as part of the overall investment plan.

Mr. Michael Marshall: No. My right hon. Friend approves BSC's general programme of investment, and details of major investment projects are submitted to the Department of Industry, but contracts relating to routine operational needs are a matter for the Corporation.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that if he investigated the contract he would be startled at his findings? Is not the industry badly mismanaged and is not that the cause of the substantial losses? Should not the management be suspended and a top level inquiry instituted, as repeatedly requested by the trade unions?

Mr. Marshall: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has corresponded with the chairman of the British Steel Coporation. He has had an opportunity to examine the Amey Roadstone position and was invited to discuss the matter further during a visit to Llanwern. It is unwise to move away from the specific problems and come to general conclusions.

Post Office

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he expects to meet the chairman of the Post Office.

Mr. Adam Butler: My right hon. Friend will meet Sir William Barlow as the need arises.

Mr. Neubert: When the Minister meets the chairman will he tell him that it took 2,000 more men last year to handle 1 billion fewer letters and parcels than it took in 1973–74? Will he urge on the chairman that when confronted with the problems of declining productivity the Post Offic should not always seek the soft option of, for example, withdrawing Sunday collections or deliveries to individual flats?

Mr. Butler: The question of low productivity is one of the main problems of


the Post Office at present. I believe that the union and the management are equally aware of this. Also, I believe that the public will not stand for any further reductions in services, nor will they welcome any increase in charges.

Mr. Ioan Evans: When the Minister next meets the chairman, will he congratulate the Post Office on making a profit of £300 million? On the question of reorganisation, in view of the fact that the telecommunications side is capital-intensive and the postal side is labour-intensive, will he keep both sides together in future, because any break-up would not be in the best interests of the nation?

Mr. Butler: The profits of the Post Office are necessary for the massive investments needs for the telecommunications side. On the question of the split between the postal side and telecommunications, my right hon. Friend has announced the Government's policy in principle on this matter following the recommendations of the Carter committee.

Dr. Mawhinney: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman will he give him an assurance that, if the Government decide to break the monopoly of the Post Office, private carriers will be expected to compete with the Post Office on a national basis, and not simply be allowed to hive off the most profitable parts?

Mr. Butler: Clearly this is one of the things that we must consider when we make our policy decision on the question of the Post Office monopoly.

Dr. Bray: Has the Minister of State or any of his colleagues discussed with the Post Office chairman the latest proposals of the accounting body to impose current cost accounting methods without the agreement of the Government?

Mr. Butler: This is not a matter that I have discussed personally with the chairman, but it is under discussion in my Department. It will be taken up as appropriate with the chairmen of the nationalised industries.

Productivity

Mr James Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the level of productivity in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Michael Marshall: No, Sir.

Mr. Hill: As my right hon. Friend already awards export industry with certificates to show that it has improved its export potential, would not it be a good idea to have a national award for local productivity agreements in individual factories so that some form of competitiveness could apply throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Marshall: That is a very interesting suggestion. It underlines that productivity is the key issue and one of the basic fundamental questions behind the steel strike.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State in a speech in Leeds over the weekend discussed "patchy management" as the cause of poor productivity? What is his team doing about patchy management and what positive steps are they taking to improve management?

Mr. Marshall: We are providing greater incentives and tax reductions. That is one of the genuine ways in which I hope the hon. Member will join us in seeking to get better pay for a better job of work done.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend assure the Secretary of State that even those of us who belong to what the press call the compassionate wing of the Conservative Party are sadly but totally in support of his policy of obliging British industry to become competitive'? Is he aware that we sadly reject the idea that thousands of jobs can be saved at the cost of taxpayers' money which, in turn, will put many other jobs at peril?

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate those remarks. They show that this great Party is united on this issue, as on all else.

Steel Industry

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he expects to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have full confidence in the chairman of BSC. I have no meeting with him planned, but we meet from time to time.

Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the chairman and the management of BSC would welcome settlement of the strike by some form of independent arbitration? Is he further aware that the ordinary man in the street finds it difficult to understand why the leaders of the main steel trade unions should be so adamantly opposed to such arbitration? Should they not at least seek to ballot their members before remaining so opposed to arbitration?

Sir K. Joseph: The British Steel Corporation's management will speak for itself, but I think I saw in the papers that it had asked the steel unions to accept arbitration.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that the only thing preventing settlement of the strike is the Secretary of State's own veto? Why does he not continue with his journeys around the country and get his colleagues to settle the strike as quickly as possible?

Sir K. Joseph: No, that is not a fact.

Mr. Gummer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the strike were ended in the way which has been suggested by Labour Members, it would mean even more import penetration because the cost of steel would run the business down even further?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and, moreover, because our competitors are accelerating their efficiency beyond that of BSC, if BSC does not increase its productivity the reduction in the size of the industry will have to be even greater.

Mr. John Silkin: Since the Secretary of State has the utmost confidence in Sir Charles Villiers, can he tell us whether it is correct that Sir Charles warned him in September that there would be the likelihood of a general strike? If that is so, what weight did he attach to that at the time and what weight has he attached to it since?

An Hon. Member: Little then and less now.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir Charles mentioned that there might be a steel strike, but I am sure that he never mentioned a national strike.

Mr. John Silkin: Since Sir Charles Villiers is reported in the Financial Times as having said that he warned the Secretary of State that there might be a general strike as a result of this dispute, will the Secretary of State take steps to see Sir Charles again with a view to ending the dispute?

Sir K. Joseph: I do see Sir Charles from time to time.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of his next meeting with Sir Charles to say how much the Government deplore the attack on the ISTC headquarters at Rotherham? Will he agree that destruction, intimidation and violence are totally unacceptable in industrial disputes from whichever direction, side or point of view they may come?

Sir K. Joseph: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he plans to meet Trades Union Congress leaders to discuss the steel industry.

Sir Keith Joseph: As the hon. Member for East Flint (Mr. Jones) may know, I am meeting members of the Wales Trades Union Congress at 4 o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman were to listen to members of the TUC about the steel industry overall in this country, does he not agree that he would hear from them their deep concern about the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to re-examine the annual tonnage target of only 15 million tonnes for Britain? Is not this strategically wrong for Britain?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the record of political judgments about the size of demand for steel is so good that any one would be impressed by any undertaking that I gave to do BSC's job for it.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the maintenance of a strong and expanding steel industry is of vital national importance, and a matter from which no Government can absent themselves? Also, does he not agree that import penetration, much of it subsidised,


is undermining investment that the taxpayers have already put into the steel industry? Will he agree that capital reconstruction, which would lift the burden of historic debt, would allow the industry to expand in order to meet the needs that a fully employed British economy would require from its steel industry.

Sir K. Joseph: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for a good deal more taxpayers' money in the assumptions behind all three of his questions. The sad fact is that the nationalisation of the steel industry has gravely damaged the steel service to this country.

Mr. Marlow: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC to talk about the steel industry will he ask whether the unions believe, and if so why, that they have a greater understanding of what working people in the steel industry require than the workers at Sheerness and Hadfields?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but it is reasonable to understand, is it not, the nationalised steel industry having been built to what we now see was an over-optimistic size—particularly taking into account the low productivity of steel management and workers—the speed of rundown that is essential if the industry is to become competitive imposes strains? That is why the Government have offered very substantial sums of taxpayers' money for redundancy payments.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General on how many occasions the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued circulars to chief officers of police.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): The Director has authority to issue circulars to chief officers of police only in respect of the offences which he requires to be reported to him and the form such reporting should take. Four such circulars have been issued by the present Director. He has no authority to issue instructions to chief officers of police in respect of any other matters.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Attorney-General then explain how his instructions about jury vetting can be enforced to those

chief officers of police who are not adhering to his guidelines at the moment?

The Attorney-General: In October 1975 when the guidelines were issued the Home Office also issued a circular to chief officers of police saying that all cases in which it was intended that a check should be made should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In March 1979 it came to the attention of the Home Office and the Law Officers that the Northamptonshire police were checking all jury panels against CRO records. This information was passed on to prosecuting counsel. My predecessor expressed grave concern at the failure to follow the guidelines that had been endorsed in the circular.
The Home Office investigated this matter and in June last year received assurances through the Association of Chief Police Officers that the guidelines were being adhered to by all forces. It was not known that in Northamptonshire the former practice had been continued until last week. The Home Office is inquiring into the latest allegations. May I say that I completely disapprove of and thoroughly deprecate what has happened in Northamptonshire.

Mr. English: As the Home Office is inquiring into this matter would it not be constitutionally more proper if circulars to the police were issued only by, or on behalf of, the Cabinet Minister responsible to this House, namely, the Home Secretary?

The Attorney-General: The circular in question which was based upon my predecessor's guidelines was issued by the Home Office.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General confirm that it is not the role of Cabinet Ministers, whether they be Lord Chancellors or Home Secretaries, to interfere with the role of chief constables in their decisions about whether to prosecute? If that is so, what was the purpose of the Home Secretary's well-advertised meeting recently with chief constables, and did he come away with a flea in his ear? Did the Attorney-General approve of, and was he consulted about, that meeting?

The Attorney-General: I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has


obviously not taken on board what I said in the course of my statement last week. That meeting was at the request of the chief officers of police who asked the Home Secretary to meet them.

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the Attorney-General does not believe that we in this House are as innocent as he pretends. There is a way of inspiring an invitation, as he well knows. I asked him to confirm that it is for chief constables to decide whether to prosecute. Does the Attorney-General approve of that?

The Attorney-General: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that the statement that I made on behalf of the Home Secretary is not true, let him produce the evidence.

Mr. Aitken: asked the Attorney-General when next he expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Attorney-General: At 4 o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, particularly in view of this timely appointment, of disturbing reports suggesting that inquiries into alleged police corruption under Operation Countryman are being obstructed as a result of disagreements between the DPP and senior police officers in charge of that operation? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is of great importance that Operation Countryman proceeds successfully and satisfactorily? Will my right hon. and learned Friend use his influence to resolve any differences that may be obstructing this affair?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question, since these reports must obviously cause public anxiety. I have taken a close interest in the Countryman inquiry and there is no truth in the allegation that the DPP is blocking the investigation. He has provided a member of his staff at the inquiry headquarters at Godalming to assist with legal matters. On 1 March Mr. Peter Matthews, the chief constable of Surrey, will take over from the chief constable of Dorset, who has retired. I hope to be able to discuss the whole inquiry with Mr. Matthews very soon. The main difficulty

as is often the case is the quality of the evidence which is available.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: When he next sees the DPP will the Attorney-General ask the Director to explain the preposterous situation where not a single interview was ordered with any of the 300 directors of Shell and BP, named in the Bingham report annex, on evidence of criminal involvement? Will the Attorney General also take this opportunity to explain to the House why when he informed me on 9 November last year that 14,000 files had been obtained from Shell and BP he failed to say that those files had not been collected by the police and were never examined by anyone?

The Attorney-General: My statement made it quite clear that the files had not been obtained and that those were the ones that were offered as a result of the demand under the sanctions order. It is right that I unfortunately used the word "obtained" though, if I remember rightly I went on to say in the second half of the answer that it would seem—and the hon. and learned Gentleman has Hansard in front of him—that it included a great number of documents. We certainly did not have them. We were told, and I remember the phrase very clearly, that we would need a number of pantechnicons to be sent to collect them.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is still great disquiet about Operation Countryman? Though the House will accept that his Department and the DPP are not blocking the inquiry will the Attorney-General comment on the allegations that the Metropolitan Police are blocking the inquiry? Can the Attorney-General tell us when the doctrine enunciated by the DPP that there must be a 50 per cent. likelihood of a jury convicting was first enunciated in his Department and by whom?

The Attorney General: The doctrine—the DPP said 51 per cent.—is another way of putting the proposition that there must be more than a likelihood that a reasonable and impartial jury, properly directed, will convict. That is the test. It does not matter whether we use the figure of 51 per cent. or the words I have just used. There is no truth at all—I have looked into the matter with the


greatest care—in the allegation that any senior officer of the Metropolitan Police force, or the City Police, who are equally involved in this inquiry, have taken any kind of blocking action. Whether there are junior police officers who in the course of the inquiry, may be exercising their right not to answer questions I do not know. However, that is a right to which they are entitled.

Mr. Archer: Has the Attorney-General had a further opportunity of considering the suggestion I made on 28 January of appointing an official to act as a prosecution ombudsman who could set public anxieties at rest in relation to prosecution decisions by looking at files that are not always available for public discussion and reporting?

The Attorney-General: That is a matter that I said I would look at. I have not yet gone further with it.

MASTER OF THE ROLLS

Mr. Canavan: asked the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor expects next to meet the Master of the Rolls.

The Attorney-General: On Monday 3 March next, at a meeting of the Supreme Court Rule Committee.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the lack of respect for law and order and the damage done to industrial relations by Lord Denning's recent judgments—overruled even by the House of Lords—is it not time that someone told Lord Denning that he should retire instead of continuing to collect £30,000 a year of public money while launching unwarranted attacks on the trade union movement and the supremacy of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) wishes to criticise the judge, he should put down a motion on the Order Paper and it would then be in order to debate it.

The Attorney-General: There is no truth of any kind in the suggestion that the learned and much respected judge has ever allowed any personal feelings to influence his decision. Many decisions of his have been upheld and have made im-

portant contributions to the law of England.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: On 3 March, will one of the topics under discussion be a change in the manner of the writ of summons?

The Attorney-General: I do not have the agenda but I hope very much that it will, in view of the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend as well as by others.

Mr. Moyle: When the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls meet, will not one of the subjects near the top of their agenda be the decision of the High Court this morning that the Secretary of State for Social Services bumblingly and incompetently sacked the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority and placed commissioners in its place? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman give that incompetent advice to his right hon. Friend? If so will he now advise his right hon. Friend to come to the House and state how he proposes to replace the illegally appointed commissioners with a properly appointed area health authority?

The Attorney-General: I have not seen the judgment. I have a brief report only of it. I understand that the learned judge said that the order was correct in every respect save for one—that it did not give a time in which the order should operate. The making of the order in every other respect was upheld by the judge.

LAMBETH, SOUTHWARK AND LEWISHAM AREA HEALTH AUTHORITY

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your indulgence and apologise for not having given you notice of this matter earlier. It follows from the question asked of the Attorney-General just now by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle).
I am in a difficulty. I understand that the High Court today ruled that the Secretary of State for Social Services was wrong to sack the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority and put commissioners in its place. Those commissioners, in accordance with their


duties, as I understand it, have closed a hospital in my constituency—St. Olave's. I raised the matter on the Floor of the House at the time, with the good will of all those concerned—there was picketing and the rest—but there was nothing further that I could do, and the hospital has now been closed for three weeks.
Now I learn that the Secretary of State had no right to take that action; that he was out of order legally. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what protection we can obtain in this House when a Minister has taken action that has caused so much hardship. Should he not be brought here to explain why he took this illegal action, and what he intends to do about it?

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a ruling from you that on the point that has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle)? It should not be proper for the Minister to put in his appeal so quickly that it acts, as it were, as a gagging writ to prevent any discussion of the matter in the House? Can you confirm that it would be in order to raise this matter under various rules tomorrow, right up until the point that the appeal might be made?

Mr. Orme: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is imperative that the House has a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services. This morning's decision is of great importance. Not one, but two hospitals have been closed since the commissioners took office. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State to make a statement? If not, could you facilitate the making of such a statement?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for the way in which he presented his point of order. I have received no request for a statement to be made. In reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), I would say that until a date has been set for a hearing a matter is not sub judice so far as this House is concerned. On the last point, it must surely be for the usual channels to get to work. I cannot invite statements from Ministers.

Mr. Mellish: Further to the point of of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trespassing on your good will, but in the light of what you have said would it be appropriate if I applied first thing in the morning for permission to table a private notice question to the Secretary of State and in that way get him to make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot commit myself in public—I do not do it in private—about a private notice question. He has been here a long time and he knows his way around.

Mr. Foot: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what has been said and of the words that I think you yourself used, I should have thought that that was about as clear an invitation as there could possibly be for the Leader of the House to make a statement on the matter. I hope that he can give the House an indication immediately that he recognises the great importance of the subject and that he will insist on a statement being made to the House as early as possible by the Minister concerned.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I have listened to all the exchanges that have taken place and I shall certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Jay: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the statement of the Leader of the House there hardly seems another point of order on which I can rule connected with the Standing Orders of the House. However, if the right hon. Gentleman has something about the rules of the House on which he wants me to rule, I will of course do my best to do so.

Mr. Jay: I wanted to ask whether it would be in order for the Leader of the House to go a little further than he has done so far and at least to say that if a Minister is found to have been breaking the law an immediate statement will be made by the Minister in question.

Mr. Speaker: I see no advantage in pursuing that now.

ENERGY NEEDS

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I beg to move,
That this House seeks a better understanding by the public of the nation's future energy needs, of the various threats to the nation's ability to meet them adequately, and of the strategies that are open.
Despite popular opinion, this House has been capable over the years of reaching a wide measure of agreement on many issues. On energy, we have shown over the years that we are capable of reaching a sensible agreement and one that I hope will give much heart to the Ministers responsible for these matters.
Since 1973 we have recognised that our country depends far too heavily on imported oil supplies. Any vestiges of hope that 1973 was a momentary hiccup in an otherwise stable situation of dependable and abundant supplies of oil at reasonable prices were rudely shattered by the events of 1978–79. In one year, oil prices have doubled and depletion policies have been introduced—I make no complaint about that, since we have such policies ourselves—by countries such as Iran. The world therefore is burning more oil than it is producing and it is producing more oil than it is discovering.
Oil is therefore too valuable a fuel to burn indiscriminately. It is needed by industry, and will be increasingly needed as the years go by, for more productive purposes. We in the West—not just this country—have had to recognise that our supplies of oil come from areas of considerable political instability. That is why President Carter recently warned that any act of aggression from an outside Power—he had principally in mind the Middle East—would be met by force.
Despite our oil reserves, it is widely agreed on both sides of the House that they are small in relation to world demand and can help us to become self-sufficient for only a brief period during the coming decade.
We must also recognise that Government can protect the future of our industrial society—that is, our standard of living—only by developing other sources of energy, and that involves taking decisions now. There can be no grounds for delay, for such is the scale of the

investment that is needed that it takes a long time before any decision that we take now is fulfilled.
I am not suggesting that those views are not challenged. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that there are those who question the official forecasts of future energy demand. They think that the amount of energy that will be required is exaggerated, but there are others who argue that we have underestimated our capacity to meet that demand. There are also those who argue that rather than pay what will be a heavy bill for investment in this country, both coal and nuclear, we should change our way of life and opt for a more modest style.
Whatever we may think about the reliability of forecasts—and we have lived through a few in our time, including a few the particulars of which I have with me—we must recognise that we are talking about energy forecasts that leave only 20 years or so for us to discover whether we are right or wrong. That is not long in terms of an energy cycle. In the end, the House can act only on the best information that is honestly given to it. I believe that we would be failing in our duty to the nation if we did not accept the energy forecasts that are before the House.
I think that the Opposition Front Bench accepts those forecasts just as much as the Government Front Bench does. I believe that that is why the majority of hon. Members have concluded that despite the problems connected with our kind of industrial society—and there are plenty—the overwhelming majority of our citizens would rather have such a society, problems and all, than go back to a pre-industrial age. The illusion—and we must persuade the public that it is an illusion—is that one can have the obvious material benefits of an industrial society without a sound energy base. We cannot. I have no wish to consign future generations of this country, starting with my own children, to a life as it was lived 150 years ago by the mass of our people, and as it is still lived by millions of men and women throughout the world—a life that we can describe as nasty, brutish and short—because we funk making important decisions.
There is also a wider and moral reason for urgent action. The report of the


Brandt Commission, whose membership consisted of some of the most distinguished world politicians and statesmen, including a former Prime Minister of this country, emphasised the great need of the nations of Asia and Africa for energy. It pointed out that a small percentage of the world's population, principally in Europe and the United States, could not continue to gobble up the world's finite fossile fuels. Fortunately for us, who live in an advanced industrial nation, there are many options open, which is more than can be said for those who live in the so-called developing world.
We do not have to go back to a nineteenth century coal economy, with all the miseries that that involved, not only for those who worked in it but also for the wider environment, with the risk of carbon dioxide pollution. In any case, as those hon. Members who represent coal mining constituencies know, it will not be too long before coal will be used for more valuable chemical purposes and as a substitute for natural gas. It will no longer be tolerable to burn it on open fire grates.
I am grateful to see present my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for the coal industry. The strategy, which was accepted by the previous Government just as it has been by my right hon. Friend, is a strategy based on coal, conservation and nuclear energy—the so-called co-co-nuc strategy. It is the last of those three strands that causes most confusion and controversy. If the need for an expanded nuclear contribution were not accepted by the public, I believe that would pose a very serious threat to the success of the strategy as a whole. That is why I believe that this House should back every effort to help public understanding of the limited but vital role which nuclear power has to play. I say "limited role", because there is no evidence so far as I know—though I stand to be corrected—which suggests that our future must be wholly dependent on nuclear power.
There are other technologies, such as wind and tidal power, and solar energy, whose potential needs to be assessed. Research is now going on in this country, on a European basis, and in the United

States, into nuclear fusion, which if successful could provide man with an infinite source of pollution-free power. But a coal, conservation, nuclear strategy can give us time to search for alternative energy sources as well as time to develop them.
In my view, it does not make sense to suggest, as some people do, that we can do nothing without nuclear power altogether. Nor should we be frightened away from using nuclear power. Much of the public resistance to nuclear power is based on fear. I do not want to make light of that, because in the minds of some people there is a genuine fear of nuclear power However, there in an irrational aspect to that fear. The irrational fear is that the nuclear reactor will blow up just like an atom bomb. But, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise, that could no more happen to a nuclear reactor than it could to a bag of chips.
There is the more rational fear of the delayed and unseen dangers of radiation. All hon. Members are trained to think in terms of thresholds. We believe that once a limit has been exceeded we get into trouble. That applies not only to radiation but to other matters. There are some who argue that radiation is an exception; that there is no such thing as a threshold; that any amount of radiation is bad; and that we should do nothing whatever to increase radioactivity in the world. They may be right. I do all that I can to avoid unnecessary X-rays. If as the distingulished scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle, writes in his book "Commonsense in Nuclear Energy", the amount of radioactivity experienced by those in the area of the Three Mile Island incident near Harrisburg was less than the amount which was experienced in a two-week holiday in regions of abnormally high radiation—he gave examples of Dartmoor and the Scilly Isles—we, as planners of energy policy, should not be deterred by risks of that order.
The United States National Academy of Engineering put the risk in the following way:
The exposure to radiation of those living within 50 miles of the plant"—
that is, the Three Mile Island plant—
has been estimated to average 1 millirem. That is the amount normally retained from


natural resources after three days of living, or perhaps one-third of that received on a jet flight across the country.
No one in the House or the country would suggest that we should be deterred from flying by jet. I dare say that a jet-setting business executive would be thought pretty eccentric if he turned up at London Airport wearing a lead suit. We accept that sort of risk when we fly, and we accept rather greater risks when we get into our motor cars, but somehow, when it comes to nuclear energy, risks of that order of magnitude—which are less—become grossly exaggerated.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Does my hon. Friend accept that in this tricky area there is an important distinction between voluntary and involuntary risk? Many people, not only in Britain but abroad, are worried about the voluntary and long-lived nature of some aspects of nuclear power.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I respect that point. However, we have come to live with involuntary risks, with the development of the chemical industry, which has its own forms of pollution, and with the coal industry, in respect of carbon dioxide. Obviously we would not wish to live in a society in which there are too many involuntary risks, but my argument is that we have come to live with a certain measure of involuntary risk. I see no great distinction in making an exception in the case of nuclear power.
We of all people should not expect power to be produced without any risk. We in Britain, with our long-established coal industry, should know that. By any statistical yardstick, the nuclear industry heads the list in safety, and its effects on the wider community stand more than favourable comparison with the coal industry.
I agree with Sir John Hill, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, that the rate at which the industry can progress will be determined not by the speed of technology but by public acceptance of what the industry is trying to do. It will also be determined by the public's perception of there being no unacceptable rate of accident. It must also depend, in a democracy such as ours, on the willingness and ability of the media to treat the subject objectively and in an understandable manner.
Over the years, the media, unwittingly on occasions, have contributed to an unbalanced presentation, because of their emphasis on disaster. That is not the only area in which the press concentrates on disaster. Bad news, so I am told, is news. There is no such thing as good news; it is always bad. We must learn to live with it in nuclear power. There is an emphasis on disaster, and too frequently—this is an area in which we should expect something better of the media—articles confuse possibility with probability.
Those shortcomings can arise and have arisen because the presentation of the facts by scientists and nuclear engineers has often been confined to specialist groups. We have heard them speak at specialist meetings, and they attend Committee proceedings in the House. They are very impressive. They have a difficult communications problem, but it is gratifying to note that recently they have become more aware of the need to communicate with the wider public, and to speak directly to them.
It is therefore all the more regrettable that during the past few weeks open verbal warfare has broken out between the deputy chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, Dr. Walter Marshall, and the science editor of The Guardian. When the editor of Nuclear Engineering also appears to have problems with The Guardian one begins to wonder what hope there is for a sensible rational discussion.
The editor of Nuclear Engineering writes:
In his enthusiasm for blaming everything from the common cold to the rate of inflation on nuclear power, Anthony Tucker"—
the science editor of The Guardian—
has excelled himself.
However exaggerated that stricture may be—I do not wish to make any judgment —there appears to be no excuse for that newspaper publishing an article claiming that a report by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate rejected the report of a study group headed by the venerable Dr. Marshall. It was not the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate. The science editor of The Guardian got it wrong. There is little wonder, therefore, that Dr. Marshall should say in his reply to The Guardian:
Factual and avoidable errors should not form part of major articles on nuclear issues.


Dr. Marshall is right. The Guardian is also right when it states that:
There is not one body of received nuclear opinion.
There is all the more reason, therefore, why the press and the scientific world should ensure that debate is conducted at the highest possible standard. I understand that the BBC is also not without its critics from the nuclear fraternity.
We can do something about that. We should take a leaf out of the book of President Carter's commission on the Three Mile Island incident—the Kennedy Commission. It made a number of recommendations. In essence, it called upon the media, regardless of size, to hire and train people who would familiarise themselves with the nature of reactors, and with the language of radiation. In particular, it recommended that resporters should educate themselves to understand the pitfalls in interpreting answers to "What if?" questions. It stated that reporters covering an accident should have the ability to understand uncertainties expressed by sources of information and probabilities assigned to various possible dangers. According to one view that was put to the Kennedy Commission, too much emphasis was placed on the "What if?" rather than the "What is?" question. As a result:
the public was pulled into a state of terror, of psychological distress.
It is as though we were constantly asking the airlines "What if a jumbo jet crashed on central London or on Wembley Stadium on Cup Final day?" It is possible that that could happen, but the possibility is remote. We have now given up putting that type of question.
I suggest, therefore, that the nuclear industry, the media and the Central Electricity Generating Board should arrange a series of conferences at national, regional and local levels so that they can get into one another's minds and understand the true nature of the problem. I ask the Government to consider what they should do to inform citizens who are likely to be affected by the building of nuclear sites. There are a number of areas in Cornwall where it is proposed to build nuclear sites. Often people acquire knowledge during a public inquiry. I suggest that there should be meetings that precede public inquiries.
Another threat to the understanding of nuclear power is the manipulation of information by anti-nuclear groups. The Flowers report, the sixth report on environmental pollution, got it about right when it observed:
We have no doubt that some who attack it are primarily motivated by antipathy to the basic nature of industrial society, and see in nuclear power an opportunity to attack that society where it seems likely to be most vulnerable, in energy supply.
I am not referring to Friends of the Earth or the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which have genuine reservations and motives.
I should like to comment on an important but no doubt less controversial aspect of the Government's energy strategy—conservation. We are told that the investment required to increase the production of coal by 50 million tonnes a year is around £10,000 million. The 12 nuclear reactors that the Government feel should be built will cost a few thousand million pounds more than that. It is a prodigious investment.
In the United States—it is probably also true in Britain—it has been worked out that it is now a better investment to save a British thermal unit than to produce an additional one. Half the energy in Britain is wasted, and therefore the opportunities for saving are enormous and rewarding. If the required investment in coal and nuclear power is prodigious, it only underlines the importance of conservation. I hope that the public will understand that by conservation we mean something more than switching off an appliance, insulating a loft, or wearing an extra sweater. Conservation means making more effective use of our energy and it involves the introduction of a whole range of new technology.
Thanks to microprocessors, we now have new control systems that, while still maintaining industrial objectives, reduce energy use as well as comfort conditions to an acceptable level.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress this country is making on energy conservation. The EEC has set targets. What co-operation have we with the EEC? How well do we compare in that respect with our European friends?
I am associated, in a most humble capacity, with a company that is involved in demand management. I have a non-executive role and I am not even paid. But at least it puts me in a position to assess the reaction of some companies. There are too many companies in this country that show a distinctly apathetic attitude towards investing in conservation technology.
The head of the conservation technology unit in my hon. Friend's own Department said last year:
We have the inconsistency of investing with a pay-back period of 10, 15, 20 years in energy production, yet when we look at energy conservation we use a two or three-year period.
I ask my hon. Friend what is the scope of the conservation programme in his energy strategy, bearing in mind that his Department has announced that conservation grants are to end in June? If he intends to rely on the price mechanism to encourage economy, I make no serious complaint about that. When people are considering whether to waste a product, price can concentrate the mind wonderfully.
Will my hon. Friend also consider introducing cash repayments for schemes that show definite savings? This is done in France. What consideration has my hon. Friend given to introducing legislation to ensure that approved energy demand systems are installed in all buildings, with penalties for non-compliance?
In that interesting and provocative report "A low energy strategy for the United Kingdom", the author, Gerald Leach, may have gone overboard for conservation at all costs, without paying sufficient regard to economic feasibility and the social acceptability of it all, but he illuminated the opportunity and benefits of conserving energy, and we are very much in his debt. What makes conservation policy so attractive is that it is a policy in which the citizen himself can play a part. He can make his personal contribution and he can benefit from that.
I should like briefly to sum up my argument. It is that this whole conservation and nuclear strategy is the best that we can devise, given the state of our technology. We are living in an age of transition. Procrastination, in the hope that the problem will go away or that

there is some perfect solution, will only make things worse. There could be nothing more dangerous than having to depend on a crash nuclear programme at the end of the century precisely because we have neglected now to adopt a more steady and orderly programme of nuclear development.
The strategy adopted by the Government, supported by the Opposition, will give us time to look round and develop other sources of energy. The American National Research Council's committee on nuclear alternative energy systems put the matter in this way:
The problem is in effecting a socially acceptable and smooth transition from gradually depleting resources of oil and natural gas to new technologies whose potentials are not fully developed or assessed and whose costs are generally unpredictable.
That, in effect, is the message that we have got to get across to the country.

Mr. David Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman, in the course of making some good points, referred to Cornwall. My constituents would like to know why it is proposed to build 1,350 MW nuclear reactors in far-away places such as Cornwall, when, clearly, sites could be found much nearer to areas of population, such as at Battersea, in London. Why must the sites be in areas far from the centre?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I am sure that the Minister, with his detailed knowledge, will be able to reply to that question. My own reaction would be that we already have nuclear reactors in other parts of the country. There are two in semi-urban areas. The one at Dungeness is very close to my constituency. My hunch is that there is probably a shortage of electricity in the western part of the country and that there is need for power development there.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: It may help the hon. Gentleman if I point out that the national grid network badly needs a boost in that part of the country.

Mr. Johnson Smith: That is what I was trying to say, but the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) put it much more succinctly and accurately than I was able to do. I am much obliged to him for his intervention.
I was saying that the age of transition gives us time in which to find alternative energy sources. It is not just a question of science or economics. Far-reaching decisions are involved, affecting the future of our country. That is why I believe that it is the most important political question that we in this Parliament will have to face.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The whole House is much obliged to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) for raising this subject this afternoon. It is no reproach to him if I say that he has not said anything that is particularly new, because the whole ground has been gone over so many times. But there is no reason why good arguments should not be repeated, and I found myself generally in agreement with him.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that energy is fundamental to civilisation at all levels. Whether we are talking of past water mills and windmills, or the former power of animal muscle or human muscle, or these days' nuclear reactors, civilisation always needs energy.
It is also true that without energy supplies in massive quantities, modern Western society would collapse. It can be convincingly argued that without the cheap and abundant oil of the period from the 1950s to the early 1970 the great post-war jump in Western living standards would probably not have taken place. The new political and financial limitations on those cheap and abundant oil supplies are causing today's stresses and strains on both sides of the Atlantic. Many of us would argue that higher energy prices have been the major contributor to the inflation of the currencies in the West.
But now the harsh truth about our material civilisation in the West is emerging. It is that our civilisation is based on taking from the earth nature's own store of coal, oil and gas; that those resources are finite; and that unless alternative sources are found and used, Western civilisation—or, indeed, civilisation generally—will last only as long as the fossil fuels last.
It is always possible to contend—the hon. Gentleman dealt with this—that our

present mode of life in the developed world is rotten and corrupt and that, by some means unspecified, we should return to a simpler and materially poorer way of living. That is only another way of saying that we should abandon the fight against poverty and let deprivation spread itself as widely as possible. But what would we do then about the ever-growing populations that have been made possible as a result of abundant energy applied to industry and agriculture? This question applies not only in our own country and much of the Western world but in the world generally.
It is, therefore, fundamental that we should develop the alternative sources of energy. It may be that the fossil fuel sources—coal, oil and natural gas—will last considerably longer than is now anticipated, but, in the very nature of things, once they are taken they cannot be replaced.
A point that is not often made is that among the alternative sources of energy one must place nuclear power first and foremost. There is a tendency to see the wind, sun, waves and tides as alternatives to nuclear power. They are nothing of the kind. Nuclear power and the others are all alternatives to fossil fuels, and some might say that they are coming along just in time. I am not arguing that the wind, waves, tides and sun cannot all play their part as new sources. They can; but they are not opposed to the uranium source; they are complementary to it.
The biggest question of all is quantity, or "How much energy?" I have one or two figures that may meet with general assent. These figures may help us to calculate our energy needs over the next couple of decades. One can work on similar equations for other Western countries.
In 1977 the energy consumed in the United Kingdom for all purposes, including transport, expressed in terms of coal or its equivalent, was 360 million tons, give or take 1 million tons. About one-third of that energy was provided by coal, a little under two-thirds came from oil and natural gas, and about 4 per cent., which makes 100 per cent., was shared between nuclear and hydro power—about 14 million tons of coal equivalent. So the nuclear contribution to our energy equation is small at the moment. It is about 4 per cent., and we could probably


throw in about 1 per cent. for hydro power, mainly in the North of Scotland.
What is likely to be the demand for energy in 20 years from now, at the turn of the century? Taking the lowest possible realistic annual growth of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent.—which is low indeed when one considers the industrial growth of this country since the War—a rough and ready estimate gives an energy requirement of 500 million tons of coal equivalent by that time. How is that demand likely to be satisfied, allowing for improved energy conservation? I agree with all those who say that it is essential to conserve energy and that we must work on that, but I believe that most people will accept the forecast, even remembering how fallible prophecy is, especially in connection with fuel and power, and keeping our fingers crossed.
The expected contribution of fossil fuels by the end of the century will be about 300 million tons of coal equivalent. Estimated savings from improved conservation—this would be a considerable improvement—would be about 30 million tons of coal equivalent, and the development of renewable sources, which is a more exact term for the tides, wind, waves and sun, will be 25 million tons of coal equivalent. Again, that is possibly a little optimistic.
From that calculation it will be seen that there is a shortfall of approximately 145 million tons of coal equivalent that can only come from nuclear fission, because there is nowhere else from which it can come, allowing for technical, economic, political and social restraints in a free society.
Naturally, if we produce more coal than at present seems possible; if we could afford to use more oil; if the wind, the waves and the sun give forth their abundance in double-quick time; if the public have a change of heart, drive at half the speed—of which there is little sign on the motorways at present, in spite of the price of petrol constantly rising—insulate their lofts and wear thicker underwear in winter, the increased nuclear contribution could conceivably be smaller.
But the electricity generating authorities—I speak with some knowledge and declare my interest in that industry—cannot proceed on the basis of "ifs". New power stations take up to 10 years

to plan, obtain consents for, build and commission, so the electricity authorities are not in the position of thinking about what will happen next year, the year after, or in five years from now; they must look 10 or 15 years ahead and plan accordingly. There was a time, not so long ago, when the country was suffering from load shedding and cuts of electricity supplies, which does not help industrial productivity.
In addition to the time taken to plan, design, develop and build power stations, worn-out and inefficient plant must be taken out of service according to planned schedules of redundancy arranged well in advance. Indeed, the overall thermal efficiency of the British electricity supply system is not as it should be, because too much oil and inefficient plant is still in use.
Whatever our views on nuclear power—we may feel that it has dangers different from anything else that we have so far known—we must accept its use. The hon. Member for East Grinstead went into the question of risk. I will add another figure to his collection that might interest the House. It is generally reckoned that under normal operating conditions there is more radioactivity from a coal-fired power station than there is from a nuclear station. That apart, and judged by the safety records so far, surely there has never been an industry in the history of new technology that has had the safety record of the nuclear industry over the past 25 or 30 years.
As the hon. Member for East Grinstead said, anything might happen in future. We can judge only on the basis of probability. Therefore, I say to the Government and to the Minister that I think that we are right to proceed with a moderate nuclear power programme. I shall not go into the question whether we should favour the pressurised water reactor in future or whether we should continue with the advanced gas-cooled reactor. At the moment the Select Committee on energy, of which I have the privilege of being a member—I see that the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) is present; he is the Chairman of that Committee—is looking into these questions in great detail.
I have never been especially enthusiastic for PWRs, but in the end I do not


think that the House, or even the Select Committee on energy, can choose a reactor for the generating authorities. That is something that they must choose for themselves if they are to have free and independent management responsibility. We in the Select Committee can draw the attention of the House to the alleged risks and the dangers that might arise. We can take evidence from such eminent men as Sir Allan Cottrell—as we did in Committee last week—who, without any hesitation, said that he would not be in favour of a PWR. He is an AGR man, and wants us to go on along that road. However, in the end, having appointed, through the Minister, a body of experts to run the electricity supply industry, Parliament cannot politically go against their honest technical and industrial judgment and do their job for them.
I hope that we shall proceed with caution and understanding with nuclear power and shall listen tolerantly to every other point of view that may be expressed. But overriding everything is the responsibility of the present Administration—as it would be of any Administration—to safeguard the energy supplies of this country over the next four decades in sufficient quantity, because without that being done the standard of life of the people of our land will go down and down.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) ended his speech by saying what I can only reiterate. He spoke about the next four decades. He has outlined the importance of a nuclear programme and has summarised from his experience the alternatives.
First, however, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) on winning the ballot and choosing the subject of energy. He has done a service to this House and to the country by reminding us of our dependence on oil and the small reserves of this country. He has set out to achieve a better understanding by the public of the nation's future energy needs, the threat to the nation's ability to meet them, and the strategies that are open. I should like to touch on that matter later.
The value of this debate at this time is the opportunity to ask the Minister of State to summarise the factors that that have changed the situation since general election and to outline in greater detail the difficulties that have to be faced and the pitfalls to be avoided by the Government. This afternoon the House has discussed the work of the party committees, and the evidence which the Select Committee on energy has already taken. There is the all-party energy studies group, which has just been set up, including representatives of the House of Lords, the House of Commons and outsiders, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). There is the material study group, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), which last week had a fascinating presentation from Sir Denis Rooke, the chairman of the British Gas Corporation. Then again, there is the parliamentary scientific committee, which has continuously been looking at these matters.
But these committees, as has already been discussed, tend to examine the alternatives in detail, and not enough thought is being given or can be given by such committees to the political, economic and industrial strategy which is essential if the nation is to choose the right course over the next decades and well into the next century.
I have always objected to Christian Democrat and Social Democrat colleagues in Germany, let alone Opposition Members, asking for an energy policy, whether in the European Parliament or in this House, because the variables are so great. The factors of constancy are limited, and there must be flexibility for individual industries and corporations to operate within broad guidelines that are established from time to time. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead that there are decisions that must be taken now, and I hope that we shall learn more of them.
I had hoped to speak in the debate on the EEC energy objectives on 5 February. I would have hoped to put various views on the European policy at that time to the Secretary of State. But since then I had the opportunity of attending a number of meetings about energy and I have had time to crystallise some of my own


thoughts. I have been asked what I should like the British Government or the EEC to do, and in public meetings I have had to admit, in the end, that the strategy can be only an Osborn domestic strategy or an Osborn European strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead referred to co-co-nuc, which is another strategy. I thank him for bringing that in. But I hope that those strategies will appeal to the Secretary of State for Industry and to my hon. Friend and the Conservative Party and to Members of Parliament in the European Democratic Group, as well as elsewhere in the appropriate industries and in the county.
There are, however, two issues that have worried me and others. First, the general public in the Western world—and I am certain that this is true of the United States of America and maybe Japan, as it is certainly for Western Europe and this country—do not see an energy crisis at present. They may complain about rising costs of gas and electricity, and, above all, of petrol. But to talk about a crisis and the immediate threat of a crisis is almost meaningless to them, and this has been proved in opinion polls time and again. Obviously, this was apparent with the British motorist last summer, when he could not find petrol at the pumps. The United States of America became a little more violent, with one or two instances of queue jumping at gas stations resulting in shooting incidents because some impatient motorists had the temerity to jump the queue. But the political uncertainty in Iran has highlighted the insecurity of supply from the whole of the Middle East.
Therefore, it must be a national as well as a European objective to obtain a degree of security of supply, and this means obtaining that security at higher costs because of the uncertainty of overseas suppliers. This has been one object of EEC policy since 1973—greater dependence on own resources and less dependence on external resources.
The second issue that has worried me has been the impact of increased gas prices on the general public and, perhaps, a failure on the part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers adequately to explain the issues

to the public. I am not being critical. It is hard enough to explain a price rise, anyhow. But in the United States of America the fact that the price of gasolene has doubled in the last year or two—although it is still well below European prices—has been regarded as a conspiracy between the oil companies and the United States Administration. Certainly the recent statement about the rise in gas prices has been put to me, even by industrial users, as a conspiracy between the British Gas Corporation and the British Government. To some it makes nonsense to talk of a need for a rise in gas prices when the profit record of the British Gas Corporation has been so good. I can understand that view. But Sir Denis Rooke, privately, in a Committee of the House, reinforced the view of Members who study these energy issues that a rise in prices is essential for the long term if new exploration and production are to be put in hand, and if it is to be made worth while to supply industrial as well as domestic consumers in five, 10 or 15 years' time.
Already the increase in the gas price will mean that the British Gas Corporation will be able to pay more for its gas to ensure that producers meet the demands of its consumers of tomorrow. This will justify, perhaps, the new gathering line for Strafjord and Cromarty. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will touch on this matter because it affects his constituency.
It will justify less flaring of gas, with a greater development of alternative methods of utilising this wasted gas, perhaps by freezing it near the rigs, and bringing it to this country, and, if necessary, selling it elsewhere. It will justify exploration in what have hitherto been considered uneconomic areas for gas or oil. Therefore, this gives the country a greater degree of security over the next four decades—and security is important.
Reference has been made to nuclear energy. The House will know that, nearly 40 years ago, I did quantum physics. Just over 30 years ago, I was working with scientists at Harwell. I learnt then that an atomic energy programme could be developed only on a time scale of at least half a century, and I have lived through most of that time scale already. An energy strategy to save the civilisation of the Western world must be conceived as


a strategy not lasting 15 or 20 years—as the Community and the British Government are doing—but as a concept of what is needed in the next 50 years or even for a century hence.
To too great an extent, market forces, and the relationship between poilticians and their constituents, demand jam today and not tomorrow. The challenge of today is that Parliaments and, inevitably, Governments, have not the chance of developing these strategies over such a time scale.
At the weekend I met two groups. One was the Sheffield group of Friends of the Earth, whose president, I believe, is Arthur Scargill, who supports coal. That meeting was attended by members of the Conservative ecology group. I stressed the value of their work in so far as it drew attention to possible alternatives and the need for safety on a nuclear programme. They stressed systems and the use of small water wheels and generators on every stream and considered whether the output from such small generators could be fed into the grid with the possibility of supplying electricity to local users. We discussed combined heat and power schemes. I still think that the heat pump is all important. Of course, there is the cost of solar energy installation and the need for incentives for it. These are alternatives on which I hope the Government will elaborate as time goes on and will provide the incentives to people to take advantage of them.
Of even greater interest was a conservative European meeting in Coventry last weekend. I addressed that meeting on a European energy policy with Mr. Madron Seligman, the chairman of the energy group of the European Parliament. The guest of honour was Gerhard Kunz, the chief whip of the Christian Democrats in the Bundestag. That meeting brought home to me the need to co-operate and work with other members of the Community at this time. A visit to Coventry cathedral after a decade, plus the fact that I had witnessed Coventry being blasted to pieces 40 years ago at the beginning of the war, brought home to me the need to work together on a European and international scale. In March 1978 Canon Kenyon Wright, according to a note in the cathedral, had referred to the fact that generations ago there were

divisions within Europe and then went on to talk about divisions between north and south. I feel that there is now a danger of divisions within Europe emerging and resulting in an inability of the north to help the south.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a former Prime Minister of this country, recently spoke about the —17 thousand million increase in the cost of oil to the Community and the need to talk of broader issues, including energy, together. The Government have done that.
Last week, at the Fuel luncheon club on the world nuclear energy scene, the Secretary of State made some interesting points. He said that the days of cheap energy had gone for good; that the security of supply was of increasing importance; that the United Kingdom as an oil producer and consumer could help influence political forces; and that the United Kingdom was doing a great deal for the EEC. That is not clearly recognised. Last year we exported 28 per cent. of our production, and well over half our exports went to the Community. I hope that our Community partners realise that.
The confidence of the oil companies is increasing. Yet, despite these good signs, there is a need to develop coal, nuclear power and energy conservation. I could go on to reiterate what my right hon. Friend said, but I now come to the domestic strategy.
Mr. John Feilding of the Bow Group has cirticised the Government on their disappointing progress in returning public enterprise to the private sector. The House has considered proposals for the reorganisation of the electricity industry. Obviously there must now be new arrangements for distribution and a new arrangement for production input, especially from free enterprise power sources.
The first essential is that the monopoly powers must be altered to allow wider private generation, and it would be wise to sell individual power stations to private companies. However, that must be done gradually. Of course, there should be local distribution.
Gas must also be considered. Exploration and production should surely be under the auspices of free enterprise. The creation of the BNOC has been a disaster.


This matter needs looking at logically. I do not want a Conservative Government to make any drastic changes, but I should like them to consider these two issues.
In the 1970s the National Coal Board wanted money for oil and gas exploration. I suggested that it should sell a coalfield and use the money for exploration, thereby becoming an energy company, and bringing about other such companies.
I should like to see European and British energy companies extracting gas, coal and oil—including coal from the North Sea, if necessary—generating electricity, whether nuclear or conventional, and selling it to common carriers of gas and electricity. The British Gas Corporation, according to Sir Denis Rooke, is not at all keen to buy Norwegian gas, unless to supply this country's needs, and he is less keen to sell it to our European partners. But he could buy gas from elsewhere. Britain could use its technology and scientfic knowledge for advance in this area. If there were to be the concept of individual energy companies, their field of interest could be Europe. If I had time I would have liked to develop those concepts further, but I will do so on another occasion.
Two factors seem certain. One is that electricity will be the energy carrier of the next century. That means that the electric vehicle will come into being, particularly in urban areas, and there will be greater electrification of transport, including rail transport.
It is interesting that the Friends of the Earth and the electricity consumer bodies are complaining of excess electricity capacity now. The nation may have excess capacity in 1980, but it is a matter of doubt. There is only 25 per cent. or 28 per cent. at the height of a rough winter. With a few breakdowns, the country could have been in difficulties. If the country could count on a European strategy it would be possible to sell electricity to Britain's friends on the Continent—France, Germany, and the rest of the EEC.
On 14 January I asked the Secretary of State
what consideration he has given to the concept of building up a surplus energy capacity, whether electricity, coal, gas".—[Official Report, 14 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1189.]

I asked in a written question for figures on the export and import of all energy sources in Britain and the Community as a whole. I was in touch with a member of the European Parliament—Mr. Madron Seligman, chairman of the energy group—and told him what I was doing, because I thought that Britain could be the powerhouse for Europe.
In a Conservative journal called "The European", published by the Young European Democrats, under the heading "A Powerhouse for Europe" I found a reference to a speech that I made on this subject. This article was written by Madron Seligman, and covered much of what I put forward at the Conservative conference in Coventry. Therefore, there is co-operation between the Conservative energy committee in the House of Commons and its opposite number in the European Parliament.
I promised to be brief, as others wish to speak. The Osborn strategy—I hope that the Government will accept it—is a personal strategy. I believe that hon. Members on the Conservative side, with industry and the power industry, must look at the alternatives. I should like to see a build-up of nuclear and alternative sources of electricity supply and preparation to use it, even if it is a vehicle for bringing in hydrogen—as a possible energy carrier. The Government and the EEC—Council of Ministers, Commission and Parliament—must evolve a flexible long-term strategy with industry to allow new technologies to provide the energy and energy carrier of tomorrow. But security of energy supplies is a priority.
Great Britain, vis-a-vis the Community, needs to import food. If the EEC is to have greater interdependence, it must come from the Community. The EEC has to import raw materials. The geographical and economic circumstances of the EEC mean that they must come from other countries. Britain could pay for these imports by becoming the powerhouse of Europe. That would provide employment, which the country will need to an increasing extent for our people, and would provide the energy carrier for tomorrow.
The Secretary of State is aware, as he said in his speech, that Britain can take the lead. I believe that time is running out. It is possible for Britain to extend a hand to our European partners, and


together the Community can solve the problems of Europe and achieve greater independence.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) on raising this topic for debate.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) will not be surprised that I disagree with him fundamentally on the basis of his analysis. No issue divides us more in terms of market straategy than meeting future energy needs. No issue shows the fallacy of the market-orientated Friedmanite policy of the Government more than the meeting of future energy needs for this nation and for other nations. The oil companies do not believe in the free operation of the market. They never have done, and it is unlikely that they ever will.
I had some regard for the Secretary of State for Energy until I heard him speak at an Institute of Petroleum dinner. At that gathering he dished up—in some respects he spoilt an excellent meal and an excellent occasion—a lecture on the virtues of the Government's market-oriented policy, saying how good it was for us all to accept the dictates of the market. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would do us good, because we should all suffer. He may be a masochist, but consumers are not necessarily masochistic.
It is right for the Government and the Opposition to try to bring home to the electorate the severity not of our position in particular but of the world's position, our relationship to that position, and the relationship of our oil industry to the world's oil prospects.
Oil is an example of the fallacy of the market strategy. The world is faced with the operations of the OPEC cartel. For good reasons or for bad, we have to face the operations of that cartel when it is operating in a declining market or in a market of stringency. Western industrial nations suffered in 1973. More recently they have suffered because of the Iranian crisis. We have suffered increased oil prices. The Government have reacted by suggesting to the BNOC that it should follow the market and not be market

leaders. That has been reflected in pricing and taxation policies. There is the potential for huge revenues to be enjoyed by Her Majesty's Government. That will give the Government the potentiality to relieve much of the public sector borrowing requirement problem. That is not the operation of the market; that is the operation of intervention.
The Labour Party has suggested other instruments, and the Labour Government created other instruments of intervention. The hon. Member for Hallam does not like one of those instruments, namely, the BNOC. Would we as a nation have been able to know as much as we now know about the operations of the oil companies if we had not created the BNOC?

Mr. John H. Osborn: The BNOC is a regulatory body, and I accept that we need regulatory bodies. They are needed even in the United States and in Britain. In that respect the BNOC has an important role. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement about that. However, the fact that the BNOC is involved in regulation and production and is in competition with others has curtailed the interest of other parties. They have been less ready to share their interests with a body that has advantages because of its regulatory privileges. The BNOC as a concept has been a disaster. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reverse the concept. However, I accept that regulation is important.

Mr. Douglas: There is no evidence on which to base the hon. Gentleman's assertion. However, if I accept the assertion, the Government's policy of removing the advisory role, and partly the regulatory role, from the corporation has removed some of the criticism that he advances. If the Government privatise the exploration and production side of the BNOC they will meet with the wholehearted opposition of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of others outside the House.

Mr. Osborn: That does not make it right.

Mr. Douglas: That is not a threat; it is a promise.

Mr. Osborn: But that does not make it right.

Mr. Douglas: We are not moralising about right and wrong; we are trying to indicate a future energy policy. If we are to take the people with us we shall have to accept that the people require some information, some safeguards and some security. There is no point in Conservative Members accusing the Opposition of being doctrinaire and embarking on policies for doctrinaire reasons when in government. They cannot make that accusation when the suggestion is that they are to dismantle an important public arm of information and the searchlight of public accountability. If they do that they will do it for no reason. No oil company desires that course of action.
Is there a Conservative Member who can name one oil company that thinks that the corporation should be privatised now? I am willing to give way to any Front Bench spokesman or to any Back Bencher. It seems that no one wishes to intervene. As I have said, if the Tories embark upon that dismantling they will be embarking upon an extremely doctrinaire policy, which the Opposition will resist. I shall be in favour of bringing the corporation back into public ownership.
The British people demand some assurances about the exploitation of an important and finite resource I turn to the importance in the short term—not in the longer and medium terms—of the Government's depletion policy in our consideration of future energy needs. We shall shortly reach self-sufficiency in oil. In a few years' time we shall be producing in excess of self-sufficiency. However, present prospects indicate that that will be for only a few years. Present forecasts indicate that self-sufficiency will account for about two and a half years of United Kingdom internal consumption. What is done during that period will be crucial. Self-sufficiency will be crucial in buying time with the swing fuel, namely oil. We shall have to buy time to cater for future energy needs. We shall have to buy time for wind and water power, and perhaps solar power. We shall have to buy time for a future nuclear energy strategy. We shall have to buy time for conservation. It is important to obtain answers from the Government.

Mr. Penhaligon: Would the hon. Gentleman like to see the policies that he is advocating pursued by the Government of Saudi Arabia? If the Saudis adopt that policy, what consequences does he envisage?

Mr. Douglas: That is a good debating point. If the Saudi Arabian Government decided to reduce oil production from about 10 million barrels to 5 million or 4 million barrels we should have something in hand. If we pursue maximum production we shall have nothing in hand.
I have suggested throughout that we should do deals with the producing countries. We are in an extremely favourable position as an honest broker. That does not prevent our leaning on the oil companies, and having an instrument to employ to enable us to lean on the companies, to ensure that our depletion policy is implemented. If the Minister suggests that we should do nothing about a depletion policy—that we should accept various assurances and do nothing about pushing the hump in the curve into the future—I shall be extremely disappointed.
I turn to another example of the fallacy of relying on the market strategy. We are about four years behind in the gas gathering system. We have flared gas unnecessarily. I am aware of the production and technological constraints. However, we are about four years behind our competitors because of the difficulties in bringing competing oil companies together. The Government have been laggards in persuading those concerned that it is in the national interest to create a transmission system spinally to link the smaller fields in the northern section of the North Sea.

Mr. Peter Rost: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the real reason why we do not have a gas gathering line is that Governments have been too reluctant to allow the market price of gas to rise so that it would have become worth while for the gas to be brought ashore and marketed rather than burnt?

Mr. Douglas: No matter which way we take it, that is Government intervention. I am in favour of a Government intervening in terms of the price of energy. The trouble with this Government is that they do not intervene in


market terms only; they intervene—not for the sake of energy—to suit their PSBR arrangements. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is delighted to have it both ways, but it would not be right for me to allow him to have it both ways. In order to meet our energy needs the country requires substantial Government intervention and underwriting. An important ingredient in terms of future energy needs is to know our reserves of North Sea oil and gas. We are about three years behind in the deep drilling programme. Again, it would require Government intervention to step up the programme.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Douglas: Perhaps it is the previous Government's fault. I do not deny that. Government intervention is required to get that done.

Mr. Rost: That is what the BNOC is doing.

Mr. Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the oil companies would go ahead and do it on their own? The oil companies would require to know the licensing system and the conditions that will apply if and when the blocks are allocated. The whole matter requires Government intervention to put it together.
There is no point in arguing that we can solve our future energy needs on the basis of the market. The Friedmanite analysis does not work here. We are trying to call into creative knowledge an area of demand that the consumer cannot demand now because the creation of it will be X years ahead.

Mr. Forman: rose—

Mr. Douglas: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given way sufficiently.

Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a good point.

Mr. Douglas: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has a good point, which the House will hear when he makes his own speech.
I turn to the subject of another swing fuel. No doubt hon. Members will have noted the speech made by Mr. Peter

Baxendell of Shell, when he was talking about coal. Particular attention should be paid to that speech, not just because of our indigenous resources of coal on land but, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam indicated, because there are possibilities, far into the future, of exploiting coal from the North Sea. I do not know what the Government's policy is on this matter. I know that there are constraints of time and the Minister of State said that he would write to me on several issues. I have not had a reply so far. If we are to conserve oil for particular requirements that cannot be met by other fuels, we will need to gasify coal for petrochemical and other products. That is far into the future and, with respect to Conservative Members, the decisions have to be made by the Government setting down the broad outlines of the strategy—not every detail—intervening and giving back. If we had taken the market mechanism system to the extreme we would have closed virtually every pit in Scotland in the 1960s. We came near to doing that under Governments of both parties.
Finally, let me attack the bogus view of the market. The best miners are miners' sons. They are not created overnight by the market mechanism. People are not inspired to go into mining by the destruction of the sociological pattern of villages and communities. That is a vital ingredient, which cannot be assessed in market terms. If any Conservative Member wants me to give way on that issue I shall do so. Miners go down into the bowels of the earth because they are part of a team, and the sociology of that is not measurable in pounds, shillings and pence—I talk in the older currency.
Therefore, if we are looking for an energy strategy we must convince our people that the world is constrained. The OPEC countries in particular are saying "You will not get our oil on the previous basis. We are suspicious of the operation of the multinational oil companies and, therefore, deals must be done Government-to-Government." We must persuade our people to conserve energy. Again, that means Government intervention in terms of insulation, and so on. We have to persuade our people that the resources are finite. We have to persuade not only our people but those in the European Community and in the United


States. Thanks to the misuse of the market mechanism in the United States, that country's use of energy has been profligate.

Mr. John Hannam: What has destroyed the energy equation in the United States has been the interference by Government in establishing regulations on pricing which have prevented the market from operating and lifting prices to the correct level.

Mr. Douglas: I have a certain sympathy for that argument, particularly in relation to natural gas. I concede the point. However, the intervention of the Texas Railroad Commission was a useful method of establishing a regulating authority. The plain fact is that the United States consumers take the view, in view of the history of that country, that there is an inexhaustible source of oil supply. We must try to dissuade them from that view, particularly in our discussions with the President of the United States. That requires an abhorrence of the market mechanism.
Therefore, we have to conserve, the Government have to intervene and set down a strategy and persuade the consumer that we have an energy strategy, part of which is to ensure at the end of the day that the rewards stemming from the natural resources will come to the people as a whole and will not be the profits of a few multinational companies.

Mr. Peter Rost: Those brave enough to forecast energy trends would do well to restrain their audacity and use a crystal ball. I regard myself as modest enough to offer only one assertion, and that is that there is no energy shortage, nor need there be, unless politicians meddle sufficiently to create one. There is no energy shortage, only a reluctance to pay the going price for what energy there is. There is no energy shortage, only a shortage of cheap energy. There is no, nor need there be any, energy shortage, but there is a great deal too much waste of energy.
We have the extraordinary scene in this country whereby millions of our people cannot afford enough energy to heat themselves to a decent standard and yet, within sight of their homes, we have a system of producing electricity whereby two-

thirds of the fuel put into power stations is thrown away as surplus heat. That surplus heat produces a thermal efficiency of about 30 per cent. That is evidence, if ever there needs to be any, that there is no energy shortage, but a great deal of waste of energy.
The short contribution that I wish to make to this discussion is to present the case that one of our primary energy options should be to do something to eliminate that waste. Waste is the result of misguided political intervention, of subsidised pricing policies, and of a monopoly of bureaucratic and over-centralised planning that results in vast amounts of public money being misspent. Meanwhile, the needy go without heat.
I hope that those who have heard me speak ad nauseam on this subject before will forgive me if I promote yet again the most important energy option available. We must eliminate enormous waste in our system of electricity production, by developing more combined heat and power. That energy option has the greatest potential. It has far more potential than new energy sources such as those of solar, wind, wave and tidal power. Such sources of energy remain in the future and their costings are problematic. Combined heat and power is far more cost-effective over a period of time than the building of more nuclear power stations. I am not opposed to the nuclear programme. However, that programme should be continued in conjunction with the far less wasteful use of existing sources of energy.
The development of combined heat and power should be the first priority when considering capital investment. At present we are at the bottom of the European league in utilising reject heat from power stations. There is an enormous saving to be made. Heat, rather than electricity, is in demand at present, and one must consider the heat loads that could be marketed. We are stupid deliberately to frustrate this source of energy. Combined heat and power will provide the quickest addition to our resources. It is also the cheapest and most cost-effective form of investment.
About 60 million or 70 million tonnes of coal equivalent are now discarded from power stations. That is enough to heat every building in Britain. After years


of study and deliberation we are now in receipt of Dr. Walter Marshall's report—Energy Paper No. 35—which was commissioned by the Government. It shows that combined heat and power is economical and technically practical, and it urges early action. It also shows that the rest of the world has been doing this for far longer than we have. We are botttom of the league, and we lag ever further behind because other countries are moving ahead at a faster rate. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Energy are more than sympathetic to the report. However, a memorandum from the Department shows that, in its estimation, combined heat and power will contribute only 2½ million tonnes of coal equivalent by the year 2000. That is extraordinary. That is to be compared with the potential 60 million to 70 million tonnes, and with the larger figure anticipated by the report.
If these issues are left to the Department of Energy, we shall remain at the bottom of the league. Millions of people will continue to suffer from lack of heat. Electricity and other forms of heating will price themselves out of the energy market. Heat will continue to be thrown out of cooling towers and into rivers. We should ask ourselves why we are bottom of the league, and why we have been so slow to develop combined heat and power. Some combined heat and power is used by industry because it realises that it is more economic to develop its own electricity and heat than to rely on that provided by nationalised industries.
About 8 per cent. of electricity and heat is produced by combined heat and power. In Germany, France and the Scandinavian countries about 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. of heat and electricity is produced in that way. Their progress has been more rapid. We are bottom of the league because there is a monopoly of electricity. The CEGB is not interested in selling heat. Why should it be? North Sea gas has also been a major restraint. It has been artificially underpriced. It is not sold at European market prices. It has therefore undermined the viability of the coal industry and the more efficient use of combined heat and power.
We lag behind also because politicians, those in charge of capital investment and those who give directives to nationalised industries have got their priorities wrong.

We hope that some rethinking is now taking place. A short-sighted attitude exists. It is all right to invest huge sums of money in providing new energy sources. We are now embarking on a masssive new nuclear power programme, and I support that programme in the long term. It is often held that it is respectable to allocate huge sums of money for investment to increase our energy sources, yet improper for huge—or even small—sums of money to be spent on energy conservation, even if it is more cost-effective than building new sources.
Governments, nationalised industries and our over-institutionalised system tend to regard investment in new power stations, coal mines or North Sea oil and gas as useful and essential. I do not quarrel with that. However, why do they not consider it equally useful and essential to invest in marketing heat? Any such investment is downgraded and is referred to as a subsidy. It therefore becomes unacceptable. I do not regard investment in combined heat and power as a subsidy. The Marshall report has proved my point.
No energy strategy could produce better results or be of more advantage to the economy over a short term than combined heat and power. However, the idea has not been put into practice because no one organisation is responsible for building up a system of heat distribution. We know that the gas industry has to produce pipelines in order to sell gas. The water industry has to build and lay pipes in order to sell water. The telephone system has to lay wires in order to sell telephones. The electricity industry has to lay a grid in order to sell electricity. But there is no co-ordinated organisation to produce a heat grid. As a result, heat is thrown away. It is not sent where it is needed, and where it could provide a cheap form of energy.
Combined heat and power is expanding rapidly in some countries, primarily because of co-operation between the electricity utilities, local authorities and Governments in providing a heat grid. In those countries it is accepted that investment in that form of conservation provides a new source of energy which is at present wasted and which is more cost-effective than investing in other new forms of energy. If combined heat and


power had been developed in Britain as part of our national energy strategy we should have had the co-operation of the utilities which are at present responsible for the energy industries. We should not then have had such a disproportionately unbalanced energy market. For example, the gas industry would not have taken such a large slice and the electricity industry would not have suffered as a result.
The arguments against combined heat and power come mainly from the vested interests, which refuse to look abroad to see what is happening there, and why. One of the arguments is that combined heat and power does not give the consumer a choice, that one would have to take hot water as a heating system or do without. That is nonsense. The consumer will always choose the energy which is the most economic for himself. That is why the consumer is switching to gas. If hot water is piped to a road, the consumer will take that hot water because it will be the cheapest form of heat. That will be the consumer's choice.
There are arguments about pollution, construction upheaval and the cost. Of course it is costly, as are most other forms of energy investment. The comparisons that are often made about the cost of harnessing heat from our power stations are totally misleading. The cost of piping the heat for district heating and industry should be compared with the costs of building new power stations to achieve the same energy benefit. Such a comparison is never made. A proper cost comparison would show that it would be more economical to convert some of the smaller city centre power stations which are being abandoned and scrapped as rapidly as the CEGB can manage. Those power stations are ideal for conversion. Examples can be found in York and on the Isle of Wight.
The other comparison that is never made is that which involves the cost of cooling towers, which would not be necessary under the system that I favour. What is the cost in ill health for that proportion of the population who suffer from lack of heat? What is the cost of the heating allowances which the State must pay to those who cannot afford adequate heating? What is the cost of damage to buildings from damp and other

problems that arise from inadequate heating? What is the cost of lost productivity from ill health and other problems caused by dismal standards of heating? Those costs are never taken into account.
I suggest that we should leave the energy debate unconcluded until a combined heat and power policy is considered to be a major option. We should convert older power stations and use the heat from the new power stations. The French are even planning to use the heat from their new nuclear power stations for district heating. Dr. Walter Marshall said that it would be grotesque to waste the heat from our nuclear power stations. It is not satisfactory for the CEGB to boast about being able to grow a few tomatoes with the hot water from Drax B power station. That is not good enough.
All over the world there are examples of combined heat and power being the most economical way to produce energy. It is almost always the most satisfying for the consumer. We should adopt the system here. We should take the lead from the EEC, which provides grants, and where progress is more rapid.
This is an urgent priority, because the scale of energy savings is so enormous and the investment could be so cost-effective. It could make an enormous contribution in the long term to saving oil burn. It could help to make us energy self-sufficient in Europe and provide relatively inexpensive heat for those who need it most and can afford it least.
Unless we convert our energy more efficiently we shall become less and less competitive as a nation, because the costs of production will increasingly be affected by the cost of energy. Above all, the vital argument is that of conservation. We do not know the solutions to our long-term energy stategy. We do not know whether the new energies will come, or at what price. We do not know whether the nuclear programme will succeed, be adequate or be safe. Until we know those answers, and until we can provide the alternative energies for when we have to phase out oil and gas, our only strategy must be conservation, because that will give us the time that we may need. For that reason, if for no other, it is time that the Government gave a serious lead. They should remove the disincentives and ensure that we move a little way up the league table.

Mr. David Penhaligon: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). In the years that I have been a Member of the House, rarely have I listened to a speech with which I agreed so much. I hope that I shall not bore the Minister—if I do I shall not worry—but I intend to make a similar speech to emphasise the argument.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith). He wants the Government to advocate a clear strategy which the British people can understand. Not many of us would vote against that, although we may argue about what the strategy should be. The hon. Member's argument boiled down to proposing a nuclear strategy. He paid lip-service to the alternatives.
I am not surprised that the nuclear solution appeals to the House, because it is the "grand solution." Politicians are always searching for the "grand solution", whether when controlling the money supply, amalgamating British Leyland or reorganising the steel industry. The "grand solution" for energy is the nuclear solution.
Several hon. Members have wondered why there is such opposition outside the House to nuclear power. It is interesting to reflect upon how many hon. Members are in the Chamber. In my experience, nuclear power is one of the few subjects which can attract substantial audiences in the hall and village. A discussion on nuclear power can attract 200 or more people. Few other subjects can achieve that. That was so in my constituency before the recent announcement. I suspect that we shall have some good meetings in the next few months. The announcement has served to concentrate the mind marvellously.
The House should not underestimate the fear. It is difficult to quantify the danger, but nuclear power stations have a jackpot potential. The Three Mile Island incident did not as far as we know cause deaths, but it was a near thing. I am an engineer and my training and background are technical. I once ran a research and development department and I learnt what I called Murphy's law: if anything can go wrong, it will—twice. That was one of the experiences of working with engineering products in an area

in which something new was being achieved.
I congratulate the engineers in America on preventing any deaths in the Three Mile Island incident. But we must take the obvious warning—that this was a desparately close call, and if we do not accept that, we are not being realistic.
My area is being considered, among others, for a nuclear power station. One cannot help but reflect on local opinion on this matter. People ask me why a station this size is being proposed in such an isolated area. That goes for all five sites in Cornwall and Dorset, which are all isolated. There may be a village near by, but there are no substantial pockets of population anywhere near them. I suspect that that is because those who have responsibility for drawing up the rules and regulations for safety standards know full well that there is a jackpot accident potential. Therefore, the feeling is that if these stations are located in Cornwall or Caithness, and an accident happens, it will not cause so much damage. That may be so. That may give great consolation to Ministers or to people who live in London, but it does not make the people who live in Cornwall feel one iota safer.
I must demonstrate to the House the peculiar recommendation that has been proposed for my area. It has been suggested that a 1,350 megawatt reactor should be built in Cornwall. That figure means little to most people, but it is probably more than three times the peak power consumption ever known in Cornwall on any night. Cornwall has never consumed more than 400 megawatts in one night, yet now we are talking about 1,350 megawatts. Therefore, it is rather ludicrous for hon. Members to suggest that the only reason for a station being built in Cornwall is the need for more local power generation. I accept that there is a need for more local power generation. I accept that there is a need for more power generation in the South-West, but not of the order of 1,350 megawatts. That is a ludicrous argument.
The House knows my view about nuclear power. Fears are constantly expressed to me by my constituents, and those fears will never subside until the Government have the courage to tell us


that these stations are so safe that one is to be built in Battersea, or, even more appropriately, in Finchley. The day that the Government are prepared to build a power station slap bang in the middle of one of the big built-up urban areas, I and others who represent rural areas will feel a great deal happier than we do now. However, I suspect that we are a long way from that position.
What are the alternatives? The most obvious is conservation, and this argument was brilliantly put by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. Clearly, by using the tax system, we can encourage people to use smaller cars. We should introduce a vehicle excise duty system which is inversely proportional to the car's fuel consumption performance. That would encourage people to buy smaller cars. Once a person has a powerful car, the way he drives it usually reflects his style of life, but if the car has not much power to begin with, clearly petrol will not be burnt up at such a rate.

Mr. Frank Hooky: Is the hon. Member aware that we have a rather daft system in the Civil Service whereby civil servants and local government officers are paid a bigger mileage allowance for a bigger car? What incentive is that to anyone to save energy?

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Member is absolutely right. Also, for reasons which I have never understood, Members of Parliament get the highest allowance of all, regardless of the size of the car. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true".] I am disappointed that someone gets even more than we do. I believe that we should question the sanity of all this.
It has been argued today that looking for massive energy savings by way of better insulation is not appropriate in a free society. It has been suggested that to force somebody to insulate his house is not part of the free society for which we all campaign. I fail to comprehend that argument. If the consequence of givng a man that freedom means that he must have an enormous nuclear power station in his back garden in order to maintain his freedom, it is ridiculous. The Government could take far more powers than they have in this area. In fact they could do far more than they

are doing without taking any powers of compulsion. All that they need are powers of encouragement.
Another way of ensuring some measure of conservation is to slow down our "throw-away" society. It has been said that we must save oil in order to manufacture plastics and other goods. Yet when I buy my son a present he has to remove three or four layers of plastic packaging material, which are all quickly thrown in the bin, before he can play with his toy. Is that the sort of production for which we are saving oil? Obviously there could be changes in the way we live which would reduce enormously the amount of fuel we use without substantially reducing our living standards.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. He referred to the thermal efficiency of our present system as being about one-third. That is true, and it is likely to remain so. Until the engineers and scientists discover a whole new generation of materials which can maintain their shape and size under pressures and stresses of which we have not previously dreamt, there is no way in which that efficiency can he increased. That is a basic engineering fact. We might take the average from 35 per cent. up to 38 or even 39 per cent., but no one can hope that the engineers can break through and achieve electricity generation of 65 or 70 per cent. unless they can produce a material with something like 20 times the maximum stress, strain and heat resistance of present-day materials. There is no obvious solution to that problem.
Therefore, we are stuck with a situation in which at least 6 tonnes of every 10 tonnes of coal mined will be thrown away or used to heat the rivers and the sky and keep the birds and the fish warm. We are spending more energy on keeping the fish and the birds healthy than on keeping ourselves healthy. Some people who write to me regularly would be in favour of that, but as birds and fish do not have the vote, there will not be many hon. Members who would take that line. If we could save half the energy that we are now throwing away we would have a heat saving equivalent of the total generating capacity of the CEGB. We would be talking about doubling the useful output of the CEGB.
I am worried that as a result of pressure from hon. Members the Government will come forward with a token scheme in which a few blocks of houses, or perhaps even one town, will be used for an experiment. Money will be invested so that the waste heat from power stations can be used to heat the houses, but only in a token scheme. I want to see a scheme which costs at least as much as one of these nuclear power stations which the Government are so keen to impose upon us. If they want to save money on one nuclear power station, they can save it on one which they propose to build in my constituency.
On the basic question of nuclear power, will the Minister bring us up to date on the problem of waste disposal? We should not build any more power stations until we have satisfactorily demonstrated that we have solved the waste disposal problems of nuclear energy. I have held that view for a considerable time and I am interested to know just how far we have come on this matter.
As a result of this motion, which I know will be passed overwhelmingly, will it be possible to include some information about the plutonium economy and its risks, and about fast breeder reactors and how we hope to build up ever-increasing stocks of plutonium and succeed in denying them to terrorists and the Third world, while maintaining their security for ever and a day? That is obviously what is implied when it is claimed that plutonium can be kept safe from people.
As most hon. Members taking part in this debate will know—I worry about those hon. Members who are not here—plutonium is a raw material for making atomic weapons. One of the strongest arguments against a tremendous world expansion of nuclear energy is the problem of plutonium. When the Government issue their discussion document so that the British people may join in this great debate, I hope that there will be a substantial and early chapter on the problems of plutonium and how we will deal with them.

Mr. Jocelyn Cadbury: First of all I wish to examine the difficulties about making predictions about energy supply and demand.

Secondly, I wish to evaluate some of the arguments put forward by the so-called low energy school, and, thirdly, I wish to say why I believe that Britain has no option but to proceed with the nuclear programme recently initiated by the Government. I reiterate the importance of removing some of the popular misconceptions about nuclear power that were illustrated so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), who initiated the debate.
It is difficult to make estimates about the demand for and supply of energy. Predictions about demand for energy are based on assumptions about two factors. The first is the rate of growth of our economy and the second concerns the amount of energy that we require to achieve a given level of economic activity—in other words, the efficiency with which we use our energy. One can see at once that those are both dangerous factors on which to make assumptions. Is there an hon. Member who is brave enough to predict our rate of growth between now and the end of the century? I doubt it. Can anyone tell how successful we shall be as a nation in learning to use energy more efficiently?
There is a third area of uncertainty, and that is the world demand for energy. The prospect of India and China achieving economic take-off has daunting implications for world energy demand. There are those who argue that such underdeveloped countries will not be able to afford to buy increasingly expensive energy and will therefore be condemned to perpetual poverty while wealthy nations continue to enjoy high energy prosperity. I find this view extremely arrogant and unrealistic. It is not a view that is conducive to world peace.
There are also uncertainties about predicting the level of energy supply, including the geological uncertainty. Predictions about how much oil there is in the North Sea have fluctuated wildly. During 1979 the estimate was revised downwards from 4 billion tonnes to 3 billion tonnes. Similarly, we are affected by the worldwide oil shortage. It is difficult to be certain whether or not all the major oil-bearing areas have been found. There may be new reserves off Greenland or in Siberia, or there may not.
There is also the geo-politicial uncertainty about energy supplies. There is no reason to suppose that the current instability in the Middle East is likely to improve, and a coup in Saudia Arabia would make things much worse for the West. If we look at supplies of uranium we see that uranium sources are widely spread around the world. Countries such as Canada and Australia, from which we get our supplies, are reliable politically, but one of our sources of uranium is Namibia, and that country lies in the politically dangerous area of Southern Africa.
Is an energy policy possible in the face of all these uncertainties? I believe that we can and must make some cautious estimates. I would say that North Sea oil is likely to run down in the 1990s and to dry up by the end of the century, though gas will probably last a little longer into the next century If we examine world oil supplies we see that we can no longer rely on OPEC countries to fill our indigenous energy gap. It is probably the case that the West can never again expect to be able to import more oil from OPEC than it did in 1978, namely, 35 million barrels. In the long run, world oil supplies will begin to run down and some time early in the next century they will run out.
We have an ambitious plan for coal in this country. However, it is important to bear two points in mind. First, there will be strong environmental pressures against starting new pits. That will slow down expansion. Secondly, it may well become more difficult for us to persuade people to go down the mines. However, if we can raise production from 110 million tonnes to 155 million tonnes a year, as planned, we shall do well.
I have therefore come to the inevitable conclusion that after a decade of self-sufficiency during the 1980s an energy gap will emerge in the United Kingdom in the 1990s and we shall become a net importer of energy once again and we shall become an importer of energy in a world that is short of energy.
What are the alternatives? There are two main schools of thought. One follows the policy chosen by the Government, called the hard energy policy. In its simplest form this entails the use of coal

and nuclear power as our main sources of energy during the 1980s and 1990s, and conservation. On the other hand, there is the soft, or low, energy policy, which has been suggested by such bodies as Friends of the Earth, Dr. Gerald Leach and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman).
I cannot accept the validity of the low energy strategy, though I believe that its protagonists have made some important points and have drawn attention to certain fundamental weaknesses in conventional thinking. But there are also many weaknesses in the low energy strategy. First, that strategy assumes what to me is an unacceptable decline in the manufacturing base of the United Kingdom. Secondly, it asserts that nuclear power is both dangerous and expensive. It also asserts that the nuclear industry is somehow robbing the alternative benign sources of energy of their fair share of investment.
That is untrue, because the benign sources of energy are still at the research and development state and the money required to fund investment in research is very much less than with nuclear power, which has reached the stage of maturity. Thirdly, I believe that the low energy strategy is over-optimistic about the speed with which we can become a nation of energy conservationists. We cannot change behaviour patterns in a few years. It will take time.
The low energy strategy assumes the availability of much unproven technology and I believe that it does not face up to the fact that many of these alternative energy sources are only at the R and D stage and that there are enormous technical problems to be overcome.
Let us look at solar energy, the best proven of the benign sources of energy. As long ago as 1897, 30 per cent. of the houses in Pasadena, Los Angeles, had solar heating. However, a major disadvantage for the United Kingdom is that the sun does not shine very often in winter, which is when we most need the energy. In fact, after making many assumptions, the International Solar Energy Society has produced an estimate that solar energy might provide 12 per cent. of the United Kingdom's primary energy consumption by 2020. That would be a useful contribution, but it is a long way off and it may be optimistic.
As for tidal energy, the most promising project is the Severn barrage, but again there are formidable problems to be overcome in constructing this enormous structure—and one cannot build a small-scale prototype first. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton has written in one of his excellent publications, which I have here—"Towards a more Conservative Energy Policy"—that such a scheme could generate 5,000 megawatts, the equivalent of five large power stations. I cannot help thinking that that is a little optimistic, but no doubt my hon. Friend will want to elaborate.
We must continue to give all these projects the funds they need, just as we must press ahead with the CHP schemes, but the Government are right not to rely on alternative energy sources making more than a modest contribution by the end of the century. Thus, we have no option but to proceed with the nuclear programme to meet the energy gap in the 1990s.
I want to reply to those who claim that nuclear power is unacceptably dangerous. Other hon. Members have referred to the safety record of the British nuclear industry. We have been generating electricity from nuclear power stations for over 20 years.
The first generation of reactors, the Magnox reactors, have proved reliable and safe. There has been only one fatal accident since the programme began. In coal mining there are about 60 deaths and 500 serious accidents a year in this country. There are more than 30,000 cases of pneumoconiosis in the mining community. That is a terrible price to pay for one source of energy.
But there remains the theoretical possibility of what could go wrong with nuclear energy—the "what if?" questions. The nuclear industry and the Government have not yet succeeded in convincing the public that many of the claims of the anti-nuclear lobby are highly misleading and amount to scare-mongering. The biggest myth, perhaps, is that a nuclear reactor would go off like an atomic bomb. Lord Rothschild said:
An explosion is no more feasible in a reactor than it is from chewing pickled cucumber.
Such an explosion cannot happen in a nuclear reactor because there is no means

of bringing the sub-critical masses together, which is what must be done in an atomic bomb.
The second area in which public anxiety has been aroused is the long-term effect of low doses of radiation. This is a difficult subject, because medical experts disagree on the interpretation of the available evidence, but there are some important points. There is no evidence that the incidence of cancer among those who work in our nuclear plants is higher than the national average. Also, the increase in exposure resulting from working with nuclear power is less than the difference between the natural levels of radiation occurring in London and Aberdeen—which arises simply because Aberdeen is built on granite.
Third, there is a scenario that a terrorist organisation would steal plutonium from a reactor and use it to construct an atomic bomb. But to build an effective bomb, the terrorists would need a team of nuclear physicists and a highly sophisticated large-scale chemical plant to separate the isotope, plutonium 239, from the reactor plutonium waste. It is impossible to conceive of such an operation being mounted, not only without a Government being aware of it but without that Government's actual support.
Therefore, the real danger is not that a terrorist organisation could build a bomb under its own steam but that a foreign Government might build a bomb for a terrorist organisation for with which it sympathised. That is a genuine danger, but the British nuclear programme will not make the situation worse.
There is a misconception about the title "fast-breeder reactor". There is a widespread belief—not one, I am sure, that is shared by many hon. Members—that a fast breeder is some sort of monstrous mechanical Errol Flynn which breeds quantities of noxious plutonium. In fact, one of its great advantages is that it consumes plutonium and that it will put to constructive use the plutonium which has been accumulating from existing Magnox stations. Therefore, the fast breeder is not a cause of the plutonium economy but will eventually provide a solution to it.
An energy gap will emerge in this country in the 1990s. The Government are right to pursue a three-pronged strategy involving coal, conservation and nuclear


power. At the same time, we must ensure that research into alternative energy sources is adequately funded and must press ahead with combined heat and power. Finally, the Government, the nuclear industry and all of us have a duty to see that the public receive a balanced view of nuclear power. The wilder misconceptions must be removed and the genuine risks faced.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I think that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) for initiating this short debate. Perhaps before long we can have a major debate, in Government time, on what we all regard as one of the most serious problems for this country and the world.
This has become almost a conservation debate, which is not a bad thing. We must recognise the terrible waste of energy that has taken place in the past. Along with a national energy policy, we should have a national conservation policy.
Of course, not all conservation is good. At the moment, energy is being conserved during the steel srike. The Department of Energy is prepared to intervene in the national interest, and I wish that the Secretary of State for Industry would not adopt his King Canute stance of not getting involved to end the steel dispute, which is having an effect on the energy and other industries. It has been estimated that British Rail is losing about £2½ million a week, and the dispute is in its third month. One wonders what the cost to the nation will ultimately be.
Talking of the ballot of the South Wales miners over the weekend, the Sunday Express used words like "South Wales miners support Margaret Thatcher". That raised a laugh in the South Wales pubs and clubs over the weekend. The ballot result should not be wrongly interpreted. The miners may have decided against industrial action at the moment, but they are concernd about the Government's policy of cutting steel capacity in a way that will harm our industrial future.
This policy is having repercussions on the coal industry. Twelve pits are on a short list to be closed. Coking pits could be closed in Wales as a result of the cuts at Llanwern and Port Talbot. Yet we are now discussing energy needs for the

future. What a criminal act it would be if the Government's steel policy led to the closing of these pits!
Energy is the source of all industrial power, yet the Western world is heading towards a deeper and deeper crisis. I agree with those hon. Members who say that much more can be done by conservation. However, do not let us be kidded by the Milton Friedman theory that there will be no world energy crisis if market forces are allowed to operate. That is bunkum. The world's energy resources are finite, and market forces will not solve the energy crisis.
There is an increasing demand throughout the industrial world for scarce resources. We in Britain are fortunate. Along with Norway, we are perhaps unique in Europe in having energy resources which we can exploit for the benefit of all the people. It is essential that Britain has a planned and balanced policy to provide adequate supplies of energy at the lowest possible resource cost. That means co-ordination of the exploitation and use of all fuel supplies. That is why we need a national strategy by the Department, so that as a nation we do not find ourselves doing one thing in one industry which is contrary to our overall interests.
The hon. Member for East Grinstead was right to refer to nuclear energy, but we must recognise that our surest source of energy supply is the coal industry. Even at the present rate of consumption, there are known deposits for more than 300 years. There are probably other sources that have not yet been located. The British coal industry offers fuel supplies at no cost to the balance of payments and with considerable potential for export production. I believe that the present levels of coal output should be expanded, with new pits being sunk wherever possible.
It is true that there are problems associated with the coal industry, but, to a large extent, due to the work of the NCB, the problems of illness have been minimised. Since the Industrial Revolution, certain areas of Britain have played their part in providing coal to meet the needs of our people. I hope that there will be no opposition on environmental grounds to the coal industry being developed in other areas of Britain. The green and pleasant valleys of South Wales were


raped by the Industrial Revolution. What the Government must now do through the NCB is to ensure that wherever possible those valleys again become green and that where there is dereliction the land is cleared in order to attract manufacturing industry which can provide jobs for the valley communities.
There was consistently high coal output during the autumn and winter, which enabled power stations in England and Wales to burn record tonnages of coal. The CEGB's power stations, which are the coal industry's largest customers, had a record coal burn in successive weeks in January, including 2 million tonnes in a week for the first time. About 75 per cent. of the electricity generated in Britain is now generated from coal. Some people talk about coal as if it can be used only as a household fuel, but we must recognise that to a large extent Britain's electricity is merely coal by wire.
Coal deliveries to power stations are also at their highest ever, and are 6 million tonnes up on the same period last year. For many weeks Britain's collieries have beaten target tonnages, and output so far in 1979–80 is 84 million tonnes—1·75 million tonnes more than at this time last year. Sales to industrial and domestic consumers are strong. While the steel dispute continues, great efforts are being made to ensure that coking coal can also be purchased.
We should try to bring an end to the steel dispute. In addition, we must try to avoid creating problems such as the one which recently occurred in South Wales, when, despite the fact that there were mountains of coking coal, we imported coking coal from America and Australia. I believe that there has now been an agreement between the BSC and the NCB to prevent that happening, but that is only a temporary solution. Is it any wonder that Britain has financial problems when at a time when we are producing the best quality coking coal we are importing such coal from elsewhere?
The debate relates to nuclear energy, but when people in Britain think of energy they think of North Sea oil. The pace of the exploitation of North Sea oil must be carefully considered and deter-

mined in the light of Britain's long-term interests. We should not squander that resource. With the energy resources that are available—this brings me back to conservation—we have an obligation and a responsibility to future generations. Scientists warn us that many energy sources are limited and that they will run out. North Sea oil will run out within the next two decades. It will no longer he there in 30 years' time. If that is to happen, it is important to use our energy sources wisely and to ensure that they are available to he utilised by future generations.
Oil revenues should be invested in British industry for the benefit of the people. The revenue from North Sea oil should not result in a strong pound and difficulties for manufacturing industry. Instead, the benefit that is derived from North Sea oil should be ploughed into British industry in order to improve its future prospects.
Natural gas is another resource that has been discovered offshore. It is limited in quantity and should be exploited with care and forethought. I do not argue about the need for an adjustment in gas prices, but I am not sure whether the Government have handled it in the best way. Almost in one announcement they said that gas prices would soar 10 per cent. above the inflation rate. The inflation rate is currently about 20 per cent., and a 30 per cent. increase in gas prices is too steep in one go. It would have been much better had that increase been phased as part of a national energy strategy.
When the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the war, many of us thought of the horror of nuclear weapons. That is why many of us argue that we should try to prevent the proliferation of those weapons, in order to avoid a world holocaust. But there were those who said that this was a new development and that we could have atoms for peace. They felt that it could be the solution to many of our problems. However, 35 years later, that still seems to be a distant dream. The nuclear energy industry has not replaced the other energy industries, although it has a part to play. I do not believe that a string of nuclear power stations will solve our energy problems in the remaining part of this century.
There are environmental dangers associated with radioactivity. Those of us who know of the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also know that there are real dangers associated with the genetic make-up of human beings. Those dangers should neither be under-estimated nor exaggerated, but we must recognise that such dangers exist.
The problem of the disposal of radioactive waste from uranium must receive our constant attention. It is no use boring holes in the mountains of Wales when the water that flows into the rivers is piped to Birmingham, Liverpool and the Severn Valley. We must be aware of the potential dangers. We must make sure that we do not do something that will lead to a massive parliamentary inquiry in 10, 20 or 30 years.
Hon. Members have been concerned about alternative sources of power. The Severn barrage scheme was referred to. Let us put revenue that we receive from North Sea oil to good use and implement such a scheme, which would provide energy for many years to come.
Our resources are owned by the people of this country. The Government want to hive off industries to the private sector, but surely it is in the interests of Britain that North Sea oil and gas remain in the hands of the people and that they are exploited for the benefit of the people. They should not be put into the hands of foreign capital which can exploit them in the interests of foreign industrialists.
Our debate has been interesting, and I hope that the House will return to the subject. Energy is important. I note that the Under-Secretary of State is present. He knows that in my constituency much of the coal is now being supplied to the Phurnacite plant producing smokeless fuel. About 18 per cent. of the smokeless fuel used in Britain is produced in my constituency, and more and more people will soon be using it because of the increase in the price of gas. The National Coal Board has asked the Government for aid for investment in the Anset process, which will produce a more efficient form of smokeless fuel. I hope that the Government will be forthcoming.
The Government must intervene and invest in our energy industry. We are going through a difficult industrial phase, but we have our energy industries, and I

hope that we shall exploit them in the best possible way and that the people will benefit.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I always enjoy listening to Labour Members tilting at Friedmanite windmills. This afternoon was no exception. When I listened to the hon. Members for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans) I had the feeling that if they could have snatched some controversy from the jaws of consensus they would have done so.
I shall be less party poiltical. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) for the able and interesting way in which he moved the motion. A number of hon. Members have been correct to suggest that the dilemma about our future needs is the enormous uncertainty of forecasting. But, as the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions, we must have some working assumptions if we are to proceed. However easy it may be to criticise assumptions—for example, the assumptions in the Department's recent working document for 1979, which are unrealistic regarding the world price of oil and cumulative economic growth—I recognise that the Department must proceed on some basis.
We need a form of energy insurance policy for the future, and we must face the implications of that. If we are to have an insurance policy, we shall have to pay the premium. To some extent, we shall have to devote resources to energy over the years to come which would otherwise be devoted to other sectors of the economy.
The threats to our supplies in the future were set out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead. There are dramatic threats, such as industrial action at home and possible political crises abroad. There are also threats from some of the more perennial problems of the energy supply industries, particularly the long lead times, the high capital costs of equipment, and the problems of environmental and public acceptability. We need to pay close attention to all those threats to our future supplies. In different ways they are all important. It is sobering to realise that not many of them are susceptible to political manipulation.
I turn now to strategies for the future. All hon. Members have their preferred strategies. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East, (Mr. Rost) made an eloquent and powerful plea for combined heat and power. I hope that the Minister of State, in his reply, will be able to say something positive about the Government's intentions. Equally, I was interested in the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) and I am grateful to him for quoting my booklet. It is somewhat out of date now, but it is worth a little re-reading from time to time. I commend the section dealing with the principles of energy policy to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for his bedtime reading, after he has replied to the debate.
The difficulty in considering strategies for the future is that we have to take account not only of where we should like to go but of some of the obstacles in our path. That leaves the House and the country with a number of unresolved issues, to which I should like the Minister to turn his attention, either tonight or perhaps in subsequent correspondence. It is important that the Government should come clean, and that they should be less coy about their intended depletion policy, and how they intend to achieve it. Equally, the Government should make their conservation policy clearer. I have said on previous occasions that a conservation policy can be based on price or exhortation but that it must be supplemented by a policy which is also based on regulations and incentives in different forms.
There is a query about the future role of electricity. To what extent do we want an electric future? One of the unspoken premises of the debate has been that electricity will be the fuel of the twenty-first century. I doubt that. I pray in aid the evidence of Lord Flowers, who on more than one occasion has said that he cannot foresee a sensible and rational use of electricity beyond about 21 per cent. of total energy needs. We are now at 13 or 14 per cent. That is a useful figure to bear in mind for comparison.
My hon. Friends the Members for East Grinstead and Northfield spoke in favour of nuclear power. I remind the House

that nuclear power is useful only for three purposes. The first is to beat the living daylights out of people with nuclear weapons, the second is to put pacemakers into people's bodies, and the third is to generate electricity.
We should consider how great will be the role of electricity before we are too ambitious and too thoughtless about the expansion of nuclear power. We need to consider whether to opt for a more centralised or decentralised route in energy supplies, and whether we shall be able to continue to get all the deep-mined coal that we need. Some of the National Coal Board's plans are over-ambitious, and they will need to be revised downwards. One does not need to be an opponent of the Vale of Belvoir to take that view. One has only to look at the sociology of the mining community.
I commend to the House the very able and valuable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead. I hope that the Minister will be able, in reply, to say one or two positive things about energy conservation. It is quite clear from a letter that I received on 8 February from the Under-Secretary of State that energy conservation is the best possible investment in the short and medium term, and from the CONAES study—an acronym for some learned North American gathering—that in every way a pound invested in conservation, whether it is in combined heat and power or in any other form of conservation is infinitely better, on an opportunity cost basis, than a pound invested in any form of energy supply.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to what has been virtually unanimous agreement on these important issues.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have followed with interest the speech of the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) and also the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on the subject of combined heat and power.
I suppose that there is some risk, in a debate in which speeches have necessarily to be very brief, that in pursuing individual elements of the energy programme speakers may give the impression of having hobbyhorses that they are riding


rather vigorously. I am sure that neither of the speakers who have addressed themselves particularly to that aspect would want to have their views unbalanced in that way.
I thought that there were two points worthy of note in the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. While apparently eschewing national strategy in the hands of large national generating boards or other organisations, he appeared to be asking the Government to pursue a national strategy on combined heat and power. He also eschewed the subsidisation of energy through the price mechanism, but he seemed to embrace it in respect of combined heat and power, and commented with favour upon the European example, where such subsidy is available. I point to these things in no partisan or carping spirit, because I take the view that we should not be embarrassed about subsidy where it is necessary to promote a particularly efficient energy resource. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my drawing attention to what I thought was something of an internal contradiction in what he was saying.
I now turn to another hobbyhorse that was flogged with customary vigour by the Liberal spokesman in the debate, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He addressed himself to nuclear power and produced what I thought was one of the more remarkable illogicalities of the debate—that because the needs of the Cornish people for power were not likely to require the construction of a nuclear power station in his constituency, the Government should eschew the construction of a nuclear power station in Cornwall. It seemed to me to be about as sensible as saying that because the people of Cornwall do not consume their entire catch of fish there should be no Cornish fishing industry, or that because the people of Cornwall did not use all the tin that was mined there in the past the tin mines should have been closed down even before they naturally expired.
The needs of the country for energy must transcend the local interests of the constituencies that we may happen to represent. If it is of any comfort to the hon. Member for Truro, I draw his attention to the experience in my own constituency, which he mentioned in the course of his remarks. It has lived with

nuclear power for two and a half decades. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the power station was originally located there because it bore some points of comparison with his own constituency at the other extremity of these islands. The vast majority of my constituents have lived with the nuclear industry without fear and, indeed, regard it as some advantage to be working in the forefront of a technological development of such massive importance to the future prosperity of our country.
In the very short time available, it is not possible to do a tour d'horizon of all the resources of energy and of what the Government's attitude to them all ought to be. Therefore, I should like to extend the hand of gratitude across the Floor of the House to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury), who attempted, in a short speech, to do just that. I disagreed with nothing that he said, and I adopt the arguments and balance of his speech. Building upon that general framework, perhaps I may be allowed to address myself to two particular areas of concern, in both of which the Minister will have more than a ministerial interest.
First, there is the question of the gas-gathering pipeline. It has been a matter almost of affront to the people living in the proximity of the North Sea to realise the extent to which gas was being flared, and the sky made red at night by this endeavour. It has been wasteful and deplorable, and we look for an initiative from the Government, when their report is available in the spring, that will ensure that the gas-gathering pipeline is constructed as soon as possible.
If the Minister is in a position to say anything about the prospect of a spur from that line being led into his own constituency in the Cromarty Firth, where it would be of great value and no doubt give a boost to the development of the petro-chemical industry—which has happily had the further fillip of the Dow Chemical Company's announced interest in developments there—he will greatly encourage the people who live in that area. I know that Ministers rarely like to speak about their constituencies, but this is an interest that we share, and I hope that he will feel it possible to say something about that today.
I hope, secondly, that the Minister will be able to go further than Ministers have done publicly so far on the Government's attitude to the construction of a commercial fast-breeder reactor. The hon. Member for Truro asked that we might be given some indication of the Government's thinking on this matter, and particularly on the handling of plutonium. We are about to be made aware of the results of the international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation, which will perhaps put in our hands the most authoritative and objective study of some of the problems that not only this country but, indeed, the nuclear world has seen.
My sources of information, which are not as authoritative as those of the Government, suggest that, although considerable doubts are expressed about the American system, some encouraging support is given to what has been done in this country over the last 20 years, even if they have not been given a clean bill of health.
I should like to develop a point that was made earlier about the fast reactor. It is not properly understood throughout this country that it is not so much a plutonium-creating reactor as a plutonium-consuming reactor. That is one of its greatest attractions from the safety point of view, and it will help to deal with the problem of the vast quantities of stored plutonium from the earlier Magnox programme.
The Government have shown some interest but have given no high priority as yet to the development of this programme. The Prime Minister has visited the fast reactor at Dounreay, and I am glad to know that the Secretary of State is visiting it next week or in two weeks time. That is good news. I hope that the Government will be in a position to announce their agreement in principle to going ahead with the construction of the next phase of the programme. I recognise that that must be preceded by an inquiry and I hope that that inquiry will consider not only the wider question of the desirability of the system but its location.
I hope that the Minister does not think that I need to apologise for again drawing to his attention the evident advantages of locating the commercial fast

breeder reactor on the north coast of Caithness where the present reactors have done so much to generate high levels of prosperity throughout the community. I have made this argument extensively myself, as have many people in the Highlands. I hope that the Minister will give it the benison of his commitment and that of the Government.
There is no part of the country of which I am aware that would welcome this development so wholeheartedly as Caithness. The people of that area have made the development possible and they should reap the benefits of future developments.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: We are all indebted to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) for tabling this motion. It has been an excellent debate. I should like to speak mainly to that part of the motion that calls on the House to seek better understanding of the problem on the part of the public. We have heard a great deal of discussion this afternoon about the sources of energy and whether their availability is infinite. But we need more discussion about the education of the public on the need to conserve energy.
I am highly critical of this Government, and perhaps of my own Government when in office, for not having done much about educating the public regarding the seriousness of this problem. That cannot be done simply by putting advertisements in the newspapers or by advertising for one minute on the television, hoping that the public will take notice. They may be shocked by a huge electricity bill or a huge bill for their oil-fired central heating but they promptly forget about conservation until the following winter.
I visited California last summer and I hope that those Ministers present will be able to enjoy the same experience next year. I should say that I paid for the trip myself, before anyone accuses me of having received a perk. One of the things I noticed that was working well in California, and which is something we could adopt in this country, was that there were huge signs on the motorways giving the telephone number of a car pool from which drivers could receive information. Anyone who has driven around Los Angeles and seen


the density of traffic there, though he might object to the American pricing policy for petrol would see that every local authority had erected on every motorway huge signs giving a telephone number that car users could ring. In that way they could discover that someone who lived in the next street worked perhaps 200 yards away and would therefore be able to share a car.
Considering the density of traffic from the suburbs in this country, it would surely not be a bad idea to encourage local authorities or the Department of Energy to erect signs with that sort of information on them so that commuters could telephone in and give information about their travel and the times they leave home to some centralised computer point which could then be fed back to other car users. That would be a tremendous saving in fuel every day, as well as helping to free some of our roads of traffic congestion.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the hon. Member aware that the Government are doing precisely what he is suggesting at the moment and that his party are opposing the proposal in the Committee that is now discussing it?

Mr. Ashton: I am not a member of the Committee, so I do not know the reasons for that. However, I have discussed this with members of my party and we see no objection to that sort of thing being done. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) did not allow me to finish. I was about to say that any incentive for people to use public transport should be encouraged. I am sure that Labour Members on that Committee are not opposed to that. Some method of subsidy, or bus-only lanes to encourage public transport to move faster and therefore more cheaply should also be examined and costed. I am merely telling the House what happens in America.
Another good system I saw in America—this can be looked at, although we do not necessarily have to introduce it—was what happened on toll bridges. I visited the Oakland toll bridge. In the rush hour it costs one dollar to cross the bridge but if there are three people in the car the journey is free. People were not made to pay because there were not three people in the car, but if there were three people in the car it was free. That is an

excellent scheme and it encourages people to give others a lift to work.
In some of the local government car parks in America the employees were not allowed to park unless they were carrying another passenger when they drove through the gate. It may be that people picked up a passenger 50 yards down the road, one knows not, but it is an idea that the Government and the Department of Energy, with all their resources, should be considering with local authorities to try to make the public aware of the need to conserve energy.
The hon. Member for Truro said that something could be done about car tax. In our manifesto we said that we would abolish the road fund licence and put the tax on to petrol. That would encourage people to buy a new Mini rather than a large secondhand Rover car. There was some dispute within the present Government about this. The Minister of Transport was against it and then he was in favour of it. It may be that something along these lines will be included in next month's Budget. We are talking not about a major new oilfield being discovered but about educating the public There is a need not only to educate the consumer.
One area at which we must look is the old coin-in-the-slot system. Some hon. Members may think that that would be a step backwards, but many consumers would prefer it. Some of the poorer consumers in my constituency who attend my surgery—I am sure the same happens with many other hon. Members—say that they cannot pay their bills. I ask them whether they would like me to have a coin-in-the-slot meter installed for them and they say "Yes" very enthusiastically. That applies not only to people on social security but to many others on fixed incomes who find it difficult to pay a quarterly bill. They would very much like to pay as they go.
What other commodity is there for which people do not pay as they go? The motorist pays for his petrol at the pump. Why should not the person using electricity pay for it at the meter? I know that the nationalised industries do not like the idea of having to collect the money, and having their collectors knocked on the head in some of the rougher areas of the community. It is


also considered that there might be a temptation to break into the meter. But there are ways round such things. It could be the type of meter where a coin drops straight through, so that the house owner would still pay by bill. But at least the action of putting the coin into the meter several times a day would convince the consumer how much electricity or gas he was using. When the house was warmed by half-past 10 or 11 o'clock many parents who are hard up would not bother switching the electric fire on again. Of course, the industries do not consider metering a good idea because they say it costs 16 per cent. more to sell gas or electricity in that way. But many consumers are prepared to pay that extra amount so that they know just how much money they are spending.
All we have had from this Government is a system of rationing by price. They are taxing gas and pushing up its price because they believe that ultimately the consumer will learn sense and switch off. What often happens is that once an old lady has received a bill for £150 for electricity she switches everything off in her electricity-heated council flat and sits there and shivers. She does that because the fuel rebate system we have at present is pathetic. The Government are taxing North Sea gas and using virtually none of that profit to pay something out to the old people who have earned the right during their lifetime to keep warm in winter.
We had some sort of electricty discount scheme whereby the first £5 was discounted and the poorer consumer received a further 20 per cent. off the bill. We were criticised by the Conservatives because the average payment was about £7. That may have been so on that particular winter bill but if the bill was extermely large the amount of rebate could have been up to £25. That kind of rebate is a godsend to the elderly, poor families, families on rent rebate and family income supplement, who exist on fixed weekly incomes and who are knocked sideways when they receive a massive bill.
We must have a system of fuel cost rebates similar to the rebate systems for rent and rates. We must have a system by which this country, which is enormously wealthy in energy—although

perhaps not wealthy in very much else—has the decency to say to elderly people "You will not go cold in winter."
We must attack the problem of conservation with much more ferocity than we have in the past. The hon. Member for East Grinstead talked about conservation. He made a very good speech. We have given grants, more or less, to owner-occupiers. If some of those owner-occupiers were old ladies who were not nimble enough to get a grant and scramble up a ladder to insulate a loft, it was regrettable that they could not take advantage of it. But there are about 5 million council tenants in Britain today. Many of them occupy pre-war houses which have no insulation, and many of them have no access to their lofts. They could not do much about getting grants.
However, it would take very little in the way of initiative and cash to start a conservation scheme in those 5 million council houses. It could be self-financing. It would not need massive Government expenditure. All that it needs is local councils having the guts and initiative to say "We have 1,000 pre-war council houses. We shall insulate them. We shall put in double glazing. We shall borrow the money over 60 years"—as they do for the housing account—"and we shall put the cost on the rent."
That would probably make about 50p a week difference to the rent. In return, the tenant would save that 50p in his heating costs. He would be very pleased to pay an extra 50p a week if it kept down his electricity bill and if he had a warmer and more pleasant house in which to live.
All that this needs is a push from the Department of Energy and consultation with local authorities about undertaking this work. As well as conserving heat, it would provide work.

Mr. Johnson Smith: That has already been done by the Government since they came into office. In the Housing Bill they are extending insulation grants.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman says that that has been done, but neither of the local councils in my area knows much about it, nor do manufacturers of glass. My local council wanted to do this for old-age pensioners' flats. They had a hell of a job in getting permission from the


Government to allocate the necessary expenditure to start the scheme. One of the things that is holding back many of the schemes which local councils want to implement is the question of loan sanction, which local councils have great difficulty in getting.
There is no serious push to start a self-financing scheme which would create a great number of jobs. Many councils have their own direct labour organisations. They have been stopped from building new council houses, by the announcement last week. There have been cutbacks in the building of new schools, roads and everything else. Some of that labour force could be diverted to energy-saving works on existing houses and buildings of local authorities. That would provide a great deal of work.
As regards the phrase
understanding by the public of the nation's future energy needs
the hon. Member mentioned the need to educate the public on nuclear energy That is absolutely right. I was about to say that the educational matter published by the nuclear people is appalling, but it is non-existent in many instances. They seem to think that the best way to discuss nuclear energy is to keep quiet and say nothing. However, we are seeing a generation of young people growing up and they are absolutely fascinated by "Star Wars", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Star Trek", and so on. Everything to do with the technology of the future fascinates them. Yet the first mention of a nuclear power station being built somewhere brings them immediately marching down the street with banners objecting to it, and they totally swing the other way. The Atomic Energy Authority seems to have done hardly anything to get hold of the opinion formers among young people and educate them on what nuclear energy means and how it will keep their children warm in the future, and to try to get across to the pressure groups just what needs doing.
I meant to mention earlier the subject of grants for conservation, because the hon. Member for East Grinstead made an important statement when he said that he thought that the Government would be cancelling the insulation grants in June. There seems to be a cutback on the demonstration programmes that

have taken place. There has been much speculation in the press. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this matter.
As regards nuclear energy, we have seen, understandably, many scare tactics being used by the media. Let us face the fact that the media live by "shock, horror, probe, discontent" controversy. It is understandable that they will promote this in order to sell newspapers, and so on. But when newspapers contain pictures of trains standing in Stratford station, nearly in the centre of London, carrrying nuclear waste, and somebody buying a platform ticket and armed with a wooden replica of an anti-tank gun and pointing that gun at a container of nuclear waste, understandably it creates doubt and fear in the public's mind.
Some hon. Members attended a seminar which was held by the British Nuclear Forum a few weeks ago. I asked some experts there what would have happened had an anti-tank gun been fired at a nuclear waste container.
The experts said "Nothing. You could have fired the anti-tank gun at the container of nuclear waste and it would have done no damage whatsoever." I said "Why do you not go and do that? Why not take a container"—although certainly not one filled with nuclear waste—"on to Hackney marshes and fire such a weapon at it to show the public that it would not make any difference?"
In America such containers have been put on lorries which have been set going at 90 miles an hour in New Mexico, and have hit stone and concrete walls and barricades of sand, to prove that no damage is done to the containers. But our nuclear people seem to think that the best way is to keep quiet and to tell the public nothing, to let the public continue to be afraid of what might happen. That is not really an energy policy.
The Government themselves are very quiet on the question of the Nuclear Inspectorate. The stories in the New Statesman of the 20 inspectors of the nuclear inspectorate wanting to set up as private consultants and refusing to go to the health and safety at work establishment at Bootle are really disconcerting. That again is something on which the Department of Energy seems to have the attitude "The less said, the better", which enables people to feed on fears


and to build up a barrage of misunderstanding about nuclear policy.
Generally, I think that the Government must admit that this afternoon there has not been a great deal of congratulation on what they are doing with regard to energy education. There has been very little congratulation at all. There has been muted hut, nevertheless, deep criticism from the Conservative Benches with regard to the combined heat and power scheme and to the conservation policies, and criticism from the Opposition Benches about what the Government may be doing to damage the British National Oil Corporation, or their intention to sell that off, and about the future selling of oil.
All of us would be glad to hear the Minister of State telling us whether we have an energy policy except one of rationing by price and taxation of energy supplies and hoping that the public will take notice of the problem in that way.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) for tabling the motion. I join with those who have already offered their congratulations to him. I particularly congratulate him on his very constructive speech. He provided us with a great many ideas, which we shall consider carefully.
It is useful for the House to have the opportunity to discuss these matters in the relative calm of private Members' time rather than in the highly charged atmosphere of inter-party controversy, for there is much in energy policy which transcends party politics. The sums of money involved are such that it is important to achieve as wide a measure of agreement as possible. I am thinking particularly of the coal and the nuclear industries.
I was interested when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) told us of the good private enterprise policies about which he had learnt in the United States. We might even have a convert to the free market.

Mr. Ashton: It was intervention policy.

Mr. Gray: In any event, I am glad that the hon. Member paid his visit. I am sure that he will be the better for it.
Energy has become a matter of first importance to the entire world. Indeed, it could be argued that the two events of the 1970s which had the greatest impact on the world economy were both to do with energy. The first was in 1973, when the price of oil rose fivefold within a matter of a few months, and the second was early last year, when the price of oil doubled following the events in Iran.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) was right to draw the attention of the House to the dangers that could face this country if there were to be another uprising in the Middle East similar to that experienced in Iran. We cannot divorce ourselves from what takes place in the rest of the world.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn for the events of 1973–74 and of those more recently in 1979 is that economic activity is highly dependent on there being adequate and secure energy supplies available at reasonable prices. There is now widespread agreement, however, in international circles that oil will become scarcer and more expensive during the rest of this century and beyond.
Nations will therefore have to reduce their oil dependence and make a general long-term transition towards the use of alternatives to oil—such as coal, nuclear power, energy conservation, and the nenewable sources. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) made a realistic assessment of the situation and put a wealth of experience into his remarks.
Whilst there may be an awareness of the energy problem among world leaders and among the larger oil companies and in industry and commerce generally, the message has had only a limited impact on the general public. This phenomenon is not peculiar to the United Kingdom. It is fairly widespread throughout the Western world.
This I find worrying, because I believe that the ultimate success of any energy strategy depends on the involvement and commitment of each and every individual. We are very conscious of this problem. That is why our energy policies are designed to convey to the consumer the


correct message about the nature of the longer term problems that we face. Realism in pricing energy is, of course, very much part of this strategy.
The need to conserve energy is an essential part of our policy, and the recent decision on financial targets for the gas industry must be viewed in this context. Our resources of North Sea gas are limited, and if domestic gas prices were held at artifically low levels for too long we should burn up this valuable resource very quickly. Proper pricing is therefore essential in any sensible energy policy, since pricing is without doubt the most effective instrument for influencing consumer behaviour.

Mr. Forman: Are my hon. Friend and his officials aware that in real terms the price of a gallon of petrol on the forecourt is now the same as it was in 1960? Do the Government intend to do anything about it?

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not think that he would expect me to comment on that issue at this stage.
Pricing alone is not sufficient. There must also be information and advice on how best to use energy from both industry and Government. Incentives and certain mandatory measures also have a useful role to play where they are cost effective and appropriate.
The task of making the public aware of the energy problem is not one for Government alone. This is a job which must involve society as a whole. There is already much debate on energy matters in the Press and other media, and the growth of energy seminars and energy research projects in recent years has been quite astonishing.
The debates which are regularly held in another place serve an equally valuable function. More discussion and debate is something which I welcome, but I should like to ernphasise the need for well-informed and unbiased debate. Debate should be based on hard facts rather than on fiction.
Public discussion and public acceptability are part of our democratic tradition, and I regard it as my duty to safeguard this heritage, particularly so far as the energy debate is concerned. However, there is also a danger in becoming

so obsessed by public debate that the future energy needs for the nation may go by default and energy projects never materialise. A sensible balance is therefore needed.
Let us look briefly at the United Kingdom's energy prospects. Our energy position for the medium term is favourable. Production of North Sea oil and gas, together with coal and the nuclear power programme, should make us self-sufficient in energy, in net terms, for much of the 1980s. But our North Sea oil and gas supplies could be declining by the 1990s, and by the year 2000 our net energy imports could be between 35 million and 120 million tonnes of coal equivalent. The effect that this would have on our balance of payments could be quite staggering.
With oil and natural gas production declining towards the end of the century, the United Kingdom therefore faces the same long-term energy prospects as other countries. Even while we are self-sufficient, we shall still not be insulated from the world's energy problems. We are a trading nation, and our welfare depends to a large extent on the welfare of the rest of the world; and, since lead times in the energy sector are very long, we have to start thinking about our future energy requirements now.
On the oil front, for example, there is approximately a 7- to 10-year lead time between an oil find and the time that the discovery comes on stream, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) pointed out. It is essential, therefore, to ensure a high level of exploration activity now in order to maintain the momentum of production in the 1990s and beyond. That is why we were somewhat concerned about the serious decline in exploration activity under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) made that point, and I had to agree with him. The hon. Gentleman was critical of the lack of exploration. But I should point out that at present all mobile and appraisal rigs are on charter. Between January and June 1979 only 21 new wells were started, whereas between July and December 1979 the number dramatically rose to 30.
I believe that the measures that we have introduced since taking office, including the various changes that we have


made in the role of the British National Oil Corporation and a proposal for a seventh round of licensing, will, taken together with the higher level of oil prices, restore the confidence of the oil companies and create a climate conducive to increased exploration activity.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline also asked about depletion. Several other hon. Members also referred to that matter. It is a matter of amazement to me that, after five years in government, the Opposition only now seem to have appreciated the problem of depletion. They did very little about depletion while in office. Yet they expect us, after nine months in office, to produce a full depletion policy. I assure the Opposition that the Government are looking at the whole question of depletion very carefully.

Dr. David Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I have only a limited time and I have many points to cover. The right hon. Gentleman has not been present throughout the debate.
Taken together, these matters are very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked for information on the possible new gas-gathering scheme in the North Sea. The survey has been carried out by the BGC-Mobil consortium and the report is expected about the end of March. Until that report is received, it is not possible to give any indication where a link line is likely to go.

Mr. Douglas: It is interesting that the only place that appears to get no information on this matter is the House of Commons. We read in the Scottish and national press daily and weekly of statements on the future of this gas-gathering system. Why cannot the Minister give us a fair indication of the Government's intentions?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has been reading press speculation on the gas-gathering system. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not policy to make ministerial statements on anything of that sort without facts.

Mr. Douglas: So they have been gas leaks.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), who produced a pamphlet on a more Conservative energy policy while the Conservative Party was in opposition, which I am sure has been studied with interest by all hon. Members, made a useful contribution and provided some interesting suggestions on conservation. We are aiming to foster a new attitude to the use of energy in all sectors of the economy, and to encourage the adoption of cost-effective measures to reduce energy demand.
The difficulty of energy conservation is that results depend on the decision of millions of individual consumers. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead observed, it is difficult to persuade the public to grasp the necessity for conservation. Realistic energy pricing must be the central element of energy conservation, so that consumers are given the right signals about the scarce and valuable nature of energy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) spoke of combined heat and power. I agree that we must encourage combined heat and power schemes where these will be economic. We are considering the Marshall report on combined heat and power. In due course we hope to announce our decision on the findings. The Marshall report took five years to prepare. The report was presented to the Government in May 1979. It was published by the Government in July 1979. I suggest that we may be forgiven if we delay our conclusions for a short while.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead questioned the target that we have in mind for conservation. Our target is a 20 per cent. saving by the year 2000. Since 1973 there has been a saving of 6 per cent. Most of that saving came in the early years immediately after the early increase in oil prices in 1973. That trend came to an end, and it was only after 1979 that we managed to improve our performance once more.
The United Kingdom is fortunate in having massive reserves of coal. Operating reserves are about 6 billion tonnes, enough to sustain current rates of production for about 50 years. Total resources


may be as high as 190 billion tonnes, of which the National Coal Board estimates that about 45 billion tonnes may ultimately become recoverable.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) spoke of the varying uses for coal. The hon. Gentleman is right. As time goes on we shall have to develop other uses for coal and the traditional uses will gradually die out. Future policy is not an issue of nuclear power versus coal, coal versus oil or oil versus gas. We shall need all our energy resources if we are to maintain standards and provide the power for our industry that we shall require in the years ahead. Before the end of the century, there could also be a requirement for manufacturing substitute natural gas from coal. Beyond the end of the century, markets for coal for manufacturing synthetic oil and chemicals are also likely to develop.
It is important, therefore, that all concerned with the coal industry work together to create a modern, efficient, low-cost, highly productive industry capable of meeting expanding demand in the future. The Government are committed to the high level of investment needed to ensure this.
On nuclear power, as hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend announced a programme on 18 December of about one new nuclear power station order a year from 1983, or about 15 gigawatts over 10 years. It is an important aspect of this programme, and indeed of the Government's energy policy generally, that we are not committing ourselves to a precise level of future ordering, or at this stage to one particular reactor type. The future will always turn out to be different from that which we expect, and we therefore need to develop a flexible approach which allows us to adjust to changing circumstances as we go along.
So, while we consider 15 gigawatts to be a reasonable basis on which the industry can plan, it is right that decisions about individual nuclear power orders should be taken as and when necessary using the best information available at that time about future electricity demand, economic efficiency, safety and so on.
The 15 gigawatts programme is a modest one which needs to be seen in the context of our balanced and diversified approach to energy policy based, in particular, on the development of coal, nuc-

lear power and energy conservation. If ordering is no higher than 15 gigawatts, only about a third of our electricity in the year 2000 will be generated by nuclear power.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead suggested that we should not be wholly dependent on nuclear power. I agree with him entirely. That is why we are trying to develop as many energy sources as possible.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is worried about the future of nuclear power stations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was reassured by the excellent speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sunderland. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sunderland has the privilege of having Dounreay in his constituency. Like me—I have a constituency close to Dounreay—he will recall the fears that were expressed 20 years ago when the site in his constituency was selected for the Dounreay project. The people in that area are now requesting that the first demonstration commercial fast breeder reactor be sited in the area.
Public confidence will, of course, be vital for the successful development of nuclear power. That confidence can be established only if there is adequate opportunity for public discussion of the issues involved. Government, the nuclear industry, and environmntal pressure groups have an obligation to provide as much information to the public as possible so as to ensure that this public discussion is well informed.
The safety of nuclear power is, and always will be, the Government's first principle—a principle that cannot be compromised. The safety record of our nuclear power programme so far is excellent. Every effort will be made to ensure that high standards are maintained and, where appropriate, improved. It will be essential that people not only understand the risks involved but are satisfied that everything is being done to ensure their safety as far as possible. To this end, it is the policy of the Government and all concerned with the nuclear industry to make readily available as much information on nuclear safety as is reasonably possible.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East suggested that we must safeguard


our capacity to generate power for the industry in future. I agree with him entirely. The hon. Member for Truro spoke about providing information. I confirm that the nuclear industry and the Government will try to provide as much information as is possible.

Mr. Penhaligon: rose—

Mr. Gray: In view of the time, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Mr. Gray: The problems of the disposal of nuclear waste must be seen in relation to the quantities involved. The volume of nuclear waste is small. The total amount of nuclear waste gathered so far is not sufficient to fill the average four-bedroomed house, namely about 800 cubic metres.
There are a great many points with which I should like to deal but time does not permit me to do so.

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Mr. Gray: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I have not dealt with some of the matters that he raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House seeks a better understanding by the public of the nation's future energy needs, of the various threats to the nation's ability to meet them adequately, and of the strategies that are open.

SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. Graham Bright: I beg to move,
That this House believes that small businesses have a vital contribution to make to Britain's future prosperity and that, in order to stimulate their growth and reduce unemployment, the burden of bureaucratic demands and of taxation on them should be lightened and the powers of Inland Revenue and of Customs and Excise value-added tax officers to enter their premises and seize documents—

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

7 pm

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 6th March 1980.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 6th March may continue until 11 pm whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 7th March 1980.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who


opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to or in the course of Proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private Business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

l0.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-comit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendent moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Social Security Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Guillotine motions are traditionally occasions for sound and fury. I had thought that this evening's debate might have followed the same pattern. However, judging by the empty Opposition Benches, it does not look—[Interruptions.] My hon. Friends know well that it is for the Government to move the motion. The sound and fury should come from the Opposition and, to judge from the empty Benches opposite, there will not be much tonight. However, I accept that ritual protests do not necessarily signify nothing. On the contrary, the House rightly and zealously safeguards its rights and Ministers who seek support for a timetable motion must satisfy the House that such a motion is inevitable as being the only way in which a conclusion will be reached by a required date.

The reason why the Government believe that the time table is necessary for the Bill is that the Bill must be law by the end of May. The reason why we must have the Bill by that time is linked with the annual process of uprating social security benefits in time for them to take effect by the due date next November. Even in a normal year, the process takes from between four and a half to five months, because, as the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) knows—he held office in the previous Government—every supplementary benefit allowance has to be adjusted manually in the local offices of the Department to take account of the changes in the rates of benefit that were announced by the Government earlier in the year.

However, this year the process is bound to take a little longer because of the need to take on board the many detailed changes in the supplementary benefits system that are proposed in the Bill. Because the time estimated for the necessary procedures to be completed is over six months, it is essential that the process should start during May so that it may be completed by November.

I do not need to rehearse tonight the changes that we seek to achieve by the Bill. It proposes a number of important alterations in our social security system to save expenditure, to simplify the structure of the system and to comply with the European Community's directives. I do not doubt for one moment that some of the provisions of the Bill are controversial, but, provided that they can command a majority in this House and in another place, controversy is no reason for holding them up indefinitely. Indeed, delay could prove expensive. In May, the Department will begin to issue claimants' order books for the new amounts. The orders will be payable from November under the new and revised rules. Books will be issued at an average rate of about 100,000 a week. The House will see that that leaves little margin for errors or delay.

I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff in the local offices who carry out this onerous task each year. I recognise that this year they will be faced with additional work and I know that they will cheerfully take that on board. If the Bill were delayed


beyond the end of May, revised order books would already have been issued on the basis of changes contained in the Bill. The danger is that any further changes made to the Bill thereafter would require the recall and reissue of books to make the further revision that the Bill would then make necessary. The House will readily understand that this would impose not only an intolerable burden on the staff in my Department and considerable trouble and irritation for claimants but it would also impose additional and unnecessary expense.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House one example of what has to be put on the order book for this coming November which is contained in the Bill so that the holding up of the Bill will prevent the isssue of new order books?

Mr. Jenkin: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying. The Bill makes a number of changes in the benefit entitlement of those entitled to supplementary benefit. When the new order books go out they go out for a sum of money, an order payable to the beneficiary. If the order books had been drawn up on the basis of the provisions in the Bill and, thereafter, the Bill was altered because it had been delayed, the order might well be wrong and it would have to be recalled and sent out again.

Mr. Field: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Field: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously never seen an order book.

Mr Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that an order book is for a sum of money.

Mr Field: Every year it changes.

Mr. Jenkin: That is right. Therefore, if there is a change in the law after an order book for a given sum of money has been sent out and that sum requires to be changed, what I was saying is exactly right. The book has to be recalled and a substitute sum put in.

Mr. Field: There is no difference. That happens every year.

Mr. Jenkin: But—this time—the Bill is before the House, and if it remained before the House because we took too long to debate it the complications that I explained would be expensive. That is why it is essential for the Bill to become law by the end of May.
Working backwards, that means that we have to send the Bill to another place in time for it to have its Second Reading there before Easter. That means, in turn, that the Bill needs to come out of Committee by about 6 March in order to allow enough time for proper consideration by the House on Report and Third Reading. I have to tell the House that, on the basis of the experience in Committee so far, there seems little prospect of achieving that timetable without the motion before us.
Perhaps I should give the House a few facts and figures.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I should like to develop my argument on this point. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman now; I shall give way to him later. [Interruption.] If I want instructions from the Labour Chief Whip, I shall ask for them.
So far there have been 14 Committee sittings, including two all-night sittings occupying in all about 60 hours of debate. Of the 18 clauses in the Bill, the Committee has not yet reached clause 6. Of the five schedules, three remain to be debated. The proceedings on this Bill in Committee are taking longer than for any social security Bill since the start of the scheme in 1948. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Salford, West says that there are reasons for that. I shall come to those reasons.
Of course, I do not deny that the Bill is an important one. So was the Social Security Act 1973, which introduced the new pensions scheme. That Act had over 100 clauses and 28 schedules, and it was disposed of in about 85 hours of debate. This Bill has only 18 clauses and five schedules, yet, at the pace at which it has been debated so far, it will take twice as long to complete. That is absurd.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; after all, I am a member of the Committee and he


is not. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that his last remarks are not true. What is true is that the Bill is almost a complete dismantlement of the social security system as we have known it and as it has grown up over many years. Therefore, discussion of it is bound to take longer than any previous Bill.

Mr. Jenkin: I rather wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. The statement that he made is so absurd as to be beyond credibility.
We must remember that, in this Bill, nearly two sittings of the Committee went by before the Opposition turned to the substance of the Bill at all. The Committee took only five hours merely to secure the sittings motion—which was in the normal Tuesday and Thursday morning form—and the procedure motion which did no more than set out the convenient order in which the clauses of the Bill should be discussed. Therefore, it took five hours for the sittings motion and the procedure motion. That compares, for instance, with the time taken on the sittings motion for the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in 1977, which started with a much more controversial afternoon sittings motion, and yet that motion was debated for 50 minutes only. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Opposition have a perfect right to debate the provisions of the Bill in detail. However, they have chosen to do so in a manner that leaves little doubt that it was their intention from the outset to force a guillotine motion. Those five hours spent on the sittings and the procedure motion speak for themselves.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Would the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the point? We were asking for a statement from the Government on shortfall. We had to wait two weeks for that statement. As a result, millions of pensioners were denied their rights.

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have made it perfectly clear—as I have read in Hansard—that that statement was totally irrelevant to anything in the Bill. The Bill does not affect the question whether the Government make up the shortfall. Five hours' discussion on the sittings and procedure motions speak for themselves.

Indeed, when the Government Whip moved the closure on the sittings motion at the end of the first sitting, the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett)—already a veteran of the Education (No. 2) Bill Committee—said:
Opposition Members will feel that they have to use the only procedure they can, namely, to extend debate unreasonably."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 January 1980; c. 51.]
The hon. Gentleman was immediately rebuked by the Chair for using the word "unreasonably". He hastened to withdraw it. The hon. Member for Stockport, North laid bare the Opposition's tactics from the first day of Committee.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The closure was moved because most of us felt that the Government should make up the shortfall in pensions. If a statement had been made earlier, there would have been no need to spend time on that. However, the Government were determined to rob pensioners.

Mr. Jenkin: Whether the Government should make up the shortfall had nothing to do with the question whether the Committee should sit on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. The hon. Gentleman has laid bare the absurdity of the Opposition's position.
I do not doubt that, in the Opposition's eyes, clause 1 is little to their liking. It breaks the link with earnings as a basis for the statutory uprating of pensions. They debated that clause for nearly 12 hours. As a result of long-drawn-out debates on procedure, on the sittings motion and on clause 1, the Committee did not reach the heart of the Bill—the reform of the supplementary benefits system—until nearly midnight on 12 February, during the course of the eighth sitting. No detached observer could conceivably argue that that was a sensible use of the Committee's time.
Some Opposition Members were more concerned to drive the Government into a guillotine motion than to debate the Bill in a sensible, orderly or rational manner. I use the word "some" advisedly. It is clear that the Opposition have been at sixes and sevens about their tactics.

Mr. Field: Can the Secretary of State give some examples?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes. Some Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Stockport, North recognise the importance of supplementary benefits reforms. They have been genuinely anxious to debate them properly. However, the right hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and Salford, West chose to play it differently. They have consistently wasted the Committee's time with points of order, dilatory motions and long interminable speeches. As the record shows, such speeches frequently called for intervention by the Chair. That is sad. The right hon. Member for Salford, West was previously the Minister for Health and Social Security. Under his aegis the review report "Social Assistance" was prepared.
There is, and has been, wide recognition that the suppementary benefits system is too complicated. It leaves too much to the discretion of officials. It is difficult for claimants to understand. It is difficult for them to know their rights. It was the Government of the right hon. Member for Salford, West who published the report. His Government launched consultations on it. That report and those consultations provide the basis for the reforms detailed in schedule 2 of the Bill. All of us—the Government, officials of the Department, claimants and their advisers—could have benefited from the detailed contributions and experience of the right hon. Gentleman. Instead, we have had little but time-wasting frivolity and fractious opposition.
The public must ask themselves why the Opposition have fallen so far short of the occasion. Several Opposition Members have been dismayed at the way in which the right hon. Member for Salford, West has chosen to conduct himself. If proof be needed that the right hon. Gentleman's objective had always been to force us into introducing the guillotine, the House should consider what happened in the Standing Committee last Thursday afternoon, after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had announced this motion. In marked contrast to the barely visible progress of earlier weeks, the Committee proceeded to deal promptly and expeditiously with several amendments of substance.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: They were Government admendments.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not care whose amendments they were. If the guillotine motion had not been announced, Opposition Members would have debated those amendments interminably.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If the hon. Gentleman is trying to catch the eye of the Chair, he is acting in a peculiar way.

Mr. Jenkin: It is not as if Ministers had been unwilling to give the Committee as much help as possible. We made available numerous notes on clauses. They were quite lengthy and they set out the provisions in considerable detail. We also gave the Committee notes that indicated how the extensive regulation-making powers would be used. Much detail was filled in by parliamentary questions and by letters that had been written to spokesmen for the Opposition and to other members of the Committee. Ministers have sought to hold nothing back from the Committee. However, that did not stem the lengthy and tedious time-wasting tactics of the Opposition.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: If the Opposition had not wasted so much time at the outset of the Committee, they would have had plenty of opportunity to debate the Bill properly and there would have been no necessity for this motion. The motion is therefore their responsibility. There should be no mistake about that. About 5 million people depend upon the supplementary benefits system. However, in the eyes of the Labour Party, the virility symbol of a guillotine motion is much more important than parliamentary scrutiny of those people's interests.
The timetable provides for at least eight further sittings of the Standing Committee. It will be for the Business Sub-Committee to determine how that substantial allocation of further time shall be allotted to the clauses and schedules. The only constraint that this motion imposes is that the proceedings in Standing Committee shall be ended by 11 pm on Thursday 6 March. Two days are allotted for Report and Third Reading. Perhaps, in order to allay anxiety,


I should say that the Government have no plans to introduce new clauses in Committee or on Report that would represent major new departures of policy.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: Of course, we must reserve the right to table amendments and new clauses. However, I can go further tonight than I did in a letter to the right hon. Member for Salford, West after the Second Reading debate. I then assured him that if major changes in the law were to be introduced full time would be given to debating them in the House. I can now say that we do not intend to introduce any such major new clauses.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he does not intend to introduce a new clause to deal with benefits to strikers' families? Will he also confirm that he will not be able to change the regulations in that respect through the Bill?

Mr. Jenkin: The firmest answer that I can give is that we will not be able to change the regulations through the Bill.
Therefore, in addition to 60 hours of debate that the Bill has already had, there will be scope for nearly 30 more hours in Committee and for 17 hours on Report and Third Reading. That is a fair allocation of time which should provide ample opportunity for the Bill's provisions to be debated properly.
Timetable motions are never popular with Oppositions, but this motion is essential if Parliament is to reach a conclusion on the Bill. Pension and other social security payments which are due to many millions of our fellow citizens will then be adjusted in time for the payments to reach them from the uprating date in November.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion in the Lobby.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Secretary of State comes second hand to the Bill. Unfortunately, he was not a member of the Standing Committee. I appreciate that his Department has two Bills going through the House, but he is not a member of the Health Services Bill Committee. Of the two Ministers con-

ducting the Bill in Committee, one was a full-time member and the other a part-time member.
The Secretary of State referred to our "dilatory" attitude. On the morning after an all-night sitting I moved a motion, which the Chair accepted, to terminate the debate. The Under-Secretary of State asked me to withdraw that motion so that we could finish the debate on that clause and examine Government amendments. I agreed to withdraw that motion without debate. Was that a dilatory motion? The Under-Secretary of State replied to the debate and a vote took place. About 10 Government amendments were accepted without debate or vote.
We do not accept that there was any undue delay. We debated the sittings motion, faced with the reality that pensioners did not know whether the Government planned to make good the shortfall that was revealed by the publication of the earnings figures from November to November. That would leave pensioners 2 per cent. short in the money to which they are entitled. The Government met their commitment on prices, November to November, which the previous Government said they would meet, but we had to wait until the following week before the right hon. Gentleman said that the pensioners would not receive their due in relation to earnings. We were angry at the Government's response. If we had not put on the pressure in Committee we should not have received the reply from the Secretary of State that we eventually received.
Instead of moving a guillotine motion, the Secretary of State should be in his office deciding how he will carry out the judge's ruling on the removal of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority. He should decide whether he will carry out his duty as prescribed by the law. Perhaps we shall hear more at another time. We shall not let that issue go.
We make no apology for debating in detail the change in the method of assessing pensions, from earnings and prices to prices alone. Pensioners will be denied a share of any increased properity in our society when earnings rise at a higher rate than prices. If that principle had


been applied between 1974–79 a married couple would now be £5 a week worse off. We are talking about benefits, not only to pensioners but to the disabled and 1½ million other people who receive long-term benefits. We are talking about a change that will affect 10 million people. If that does not warrant a major debate I do not know what does. We had good cause to debate that subject.
We were told by the Minister for Social Security that apart from clause 1 the Bill was not controversial. I hope that he has changed his mind. He has heard some of the debate on the Bill's major aspects, not least those contained in schedule 2. The Government cannot rewrite the whole of the social security system and say that it is uncontroversial. Major changes are proposed. I give credit to my hon. Friends who pursued the major issues in order to elicit information from the Ministers.
The Minister for Social Security once said that he would not speak for more than five minutes because he wanted to be concise and to the point. A few days later he was on his feet for over 45 minutes because we were trying to elicit information which unfortunately he could not give. We were told that a small number of people would lose and that others would gain by varying amounts under the Bill's provisions. However, in a written answer on 10 December the Under-Secretary of State admitted that there would be 1·8 million losers and only 700,000 gainers, and that more than 300 claimants would lose over £1 a week. Is that a small number? Is that noncontroversial? We had a duty to debate that issue at length. I make no apology for it.
In this century there is no precedent for legislation taking away the rights of the poor on that scale. It has not happened since the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which tried to abolish outdoor relief. That failed, but it caused untold misery. The only guillotine on a social security Bill since 1945 was on the National Health Service Bill 1961, which raised national insurance contributions to an unprecedented level. That happened under a Conservative Administration. There has never been a guillotine on a social security Bill introduced by a Labour Government. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich,

North (Mr. Ennals) will be able to confirm that there has not been a guillotine motion on a health services Bill.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: For the sake of accuracy, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) will confirm that the Health Services Bill 1976 was guillotined by the Labour Government.

Mr. Orme: I was dealing basically with social security Bills. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will deal with that later.
On the question of the supplementary benefits review, our earlier report said:
Neither the Government nor the Supplementary Benefits Commission are committed in any way at this stage to any of the views expressed or possibilities for change discussed.
The report's foreword, which was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and myself, made this absolutely clear. It said:
We want to hear the comments of all concerned—interested organisations and the public—before taking any decisions about the future shape of the scheme.
This invitation launched one of the most important exercises in open government yet undertaken. Public meetings and seminars were held all over the country and members of the review team attended those meetings to discuss and explain their proposals. The Labour Government welcomed and encouraged public debate in the full knowledge that such debate would not be confined to discussion of nil-cost reforms. At the meetings members of the review team themselves stressed that the Government were not committed to a nil-cost package. The SBC also joined in the debate and published its own response to the review. It firmly rejected the nil-cost approach. Although the SBC and Ministers are advised by the same officials, there is nothing in the commission's response to suggest that it thought that the Government were in any way committed to action on a nil-cost basis. That needs to be put on the record.
A major difficulty about debating this Bill is that the Government's intentions are still shrouded in uncertainty and ambiguity. The supplementary benefits review and the public debate that followed should have culminated in a major White Paper. Instead, the Government issued a


miserable six-page document, which is an insult not only to Parliament but to all those who have contributed to the debate throughout the country.
The Bill is a mere skeleton, which leaves nearly all the rules to be laid down in the regulations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us now when we will get those regulations. We are debating in the dark. In Committee we asked Ministers time and time again how various matters would be affected by the regulations. The Ministers were unable to tell us.
My second point is that we do not believe that it is satisfactory to have a one-and-a-half-hour debate when the regulations come before the House. Because we felt that the regulations were of such importance, we proposed in Committee that they should go either to a Select Committee of the House or to the new body that is being set up. We felt that the new body should meet in public so that people could be aware of its discussions and the problems arising out of the regulations. We are entitled to a statement from the Government, because we are still debating in the dark.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman really must not mislead the House. Many hon. Members here today are not members of the Standing Committee and they may not realise that notes on clauses, totalling 40 pages of details of what was likely to go into the regulations, were made available to every member of the Committee. Moreover the right hon. Gentleman has not acknowledged the fact that the Government accepted the Opposition's amendment No. 221 to provide that the major regulations bringing in the scheme would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and not the negative resolution procedure as had been originally intended. The Government have gone a long way to meet the Opposition's wishes on this matter.

Mr. Orme: They have not gone nearly far enough.
I wish to outline to the right hon. Gentleman a number of points, because the present Supplementary Benefits Act covers important matters which are now to be left to regulations. The present Act sets out details of earnings and other resources to be disregarded. It also

includes rules for calculating the amount to be added for rents and other housing costs. The present Act sets out the detailed rules regarding the reduction of benefits on leaving a job voluntarily or refusing suitable employment. None of these points is covered in schedule 2. That is the importance of having the regulations and having the debates in an open manner.
Within a few days of the issue of the notes on clauses I put 44 questions to the Secretary of State on aspects of the scheme that were not fully explained in the annex. The answer that he gave me was evasive and not full enough, and did not meet many of my points. It did not cover major aspects of the scheme on rent additions and clothing grants. Ministers themselves do not know how the new scheme will work. One thing has become clear from the dribs and drabs of information that we have managed to extract—this is not a nil-cost package at all.
The annex says that "additional requirements", now known as "exceptional circumstances additions", will be broadly the same as under the existing policy of the SBC, but it is now clear that the Government regard the policy of paying heating additions to families with young children and people over 75 as a one-off exercise. Ministers have said that they are still considering what to do about fuel costs in 1980–81 and future years. Whatever they may decide, it is clearly not included in the costing of the Bill.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: indicated assent.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State confirms that. Yet the savings listed in the financial memorandum to the Bill do not include this item. Therefore, there is an unadmitted profit of about £11·5 million from this item alone. One could give other examples as well.
Why do we need so much more information? The first reason is the loss of discretion. This is one of the major changes that the right hon. Gentleman makes in the scheme. He is giving people legal rights in place of discretionary payments. But the Government seem bent on taking away the powers to meet needs that are now not covered by the regulations. At present the SBC lays down broad policy but can always stretch the rules to meet unanticipated needs. My


right hon. and hon. Friends have given countless examples in Committee of cases where needs are given at the last minute in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, exceptional needs grants must be made on a one-off basis and perhaps in an area where they have never been made before or for all sorts of national and local disasters.
We must be sure that the regulations will be wide enough to give benefit officers all the powers that they will need. That means detailed probing of every aspect of the scheme. That is what we are doing and that is what we will continue to do. We make no apology for it. It is no use waiting until the regulations are published. Unless the Government make special arrangements for prior consultations, it will be too late to amend the regulations by then. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that at present he is not prepared to make any alterations.
We cannot responsibly let this Bill reach the statute book without insisting on full disclosure about the effects on individual claimants, particularly those who stand to lose. It is one thing for the Government to increase benefits by regulation; it is quite another to cut them. If the Government want powers to do that we must know exactly how they intend to use such powers, and it is not good enough for Ministers to tell us that they have not yet decided. We do not acecept that.
That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State should be on the Committee. The Under-Secretary has been left to carry a very heavy burden. I know that I will damage her if I start praising her across the Floor of the House, but she has carried a great deal of the weight, and not least through the two all-night sittings. But she is the junior Minister. The senior Minister has not been present through the important parts of the Bill.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): It has been explained to the right hon. Gentleman privately and at least once publicly in the Committee that on medical advice I did not stay very late when the Committee went through the night. I have of course attended all the daytime sittings and have taken a considerable part in discussion. I had thought that there were limits to the bad

manners and the bad taste of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). My position has been explained to him and he need not keep on talking about it.

Mr. Orme: I hear what the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) says. However, after one all-night sitting he was not prevented from holding a press conference the following morning and speaking on the radio and giving television interviews all day after not being present in the Committee the night before. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has treated the Committee with contempt by not being properly represented. I make no apologies for raising the matter.
We have been told that one of the noncontroversial aspects of the Bill is the abolition of the SBC and the intention to make individual benefit officers responsible for decisions on individual cases. It was clear from the outset that some co-ordinating machinery would be needed—benefit officers could not operate without central guidance. The White Paper does not mention—we needed to extract the information from the Secretary of State—that this central guidance will be provided by a chief supplementary benefit officer. The Bill does not mention that, either. Such guidance will be central to the operation of the scheme and yet we are told by Ministers that it will not be published. How can Ministers say that?
The chief supplementary benefit officer, like local benefits officers, will be an independent statutory official. He will not take orders from the Secretary of State, and if he wishes to offer guidance to local officers he will have the right to do so. How can Ministers say that this independent official—not yet appointed—will not exercise that right?
A number of proposed amendments will afford the Committee the opportunity to probe the role of this officer. Ministers have sought to show that his guidance will be of no interest to claimants and that it will not be practicable to publish his notes on guidance. They have misled the Committee on both points.
The chief officer will advise not only on Questions of legal interpretation but on vital questions of policy, such as the rules for deciding whether a rent or


board and lodging charge is reasonable and should be met in full. His advice may be summarised in a handbook. We need to know about the Social Security Advisory Committee as well as the publication of the handbook.
The advisory functions of the SBC have become increasingly important. Will the new chief officer be able to do what the SBC does? Will his department have a full-time chairman? What power will the new body have to demand information from officials and Ministers? These are questions to which we have not received answers in Committee and I now ask them in this House because I believe that I am entitled to do so.
Will the new advisory committee have free access to relevant departmental files, as does the SBC? Will it have free access to local offices? Will it be free to make and publish reports of its own choosing on questions of policy, as the SBC now does? On the other hand, will it, like the Social Security Benefits Commission be subject to ministerial veto on publication? Will the new body be able to commission research? What will be its relationship with the SBC inspectorate on which the present Commission relies for much of its information about the operation of the supplementary benefits scheme?
These are a few of the questions that need to be answered. The Government cannot dismantle and remove a system that has been built up over many years, replace it with another system, and not answer these questions. The attention of the Secretary of State is being diverted at the moment, but we need answers to these questions.
We believe that this guillotine is unnecessary, because when the Government decided to make these changes they should have taken the time factor into account and brought the Bill forward sooner. My right hon. and hon. Friends were prepared to discuss in some detail the questions that I have asked. Many of them were not answered in Committee and have not yet been answered, but we will continue to press for answers.
I fear for many of the claimants when this new Bill becomes an Act. Discretion will be removed, and there will be major change. We do not know the nature of the new body that will replace the SBC.

We do not know how it will operate, what kind of personnel will be appointed, and what freedom and independence they will enjoy.
The SBC was developed over a number of years and enjoyed a measure of independence that at times allowed it to be critical of me and my right hon. Friends. The SBC had the right to be critical and to publish its views in the public interest. Now the Government intend to sweep it away and we have no guarantee that the new body will have the same guaranteed independence.
This Bill has 18 clauses and five schedules. It is a small Bill in those terms, but it is a Bill of great importance to millions of claimants. Those claimants are mostly from the poorer section of our community. We make no apology for what we have done in Committee, because we believe that we did it on behalf of people who needed representation. We shall continue that representation and when we come back into office we shall remove some of the worst effects of this Bill.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The attitude displayed by Labour Members is perhaps not wholly attractive to those of us who reflect that between March 1974 and March 1979 the Labour Government tried to apply the guillotine to no fewer than 12 Bills. They were successful on 11 occasions. It is true to say that more guillotines were applied during that period than in any other comparable period of government in our political history. Therefore the attitude displayed by the Opposition, though wholly predictable, is not attractive.

Mr. Field: Some of us were not here then.

Mr. Hogg: Of course some of us were not here then, but I can judge historical matters clearly even though I was not here.
When one considers these matters, one realises that it is not surprising that Labour Members should go through this pantomine of disgust and dismay. In part they are trying to persuade their supporters in the country that they are doing their stuff. In part also—and this is a much more respectable reason—they are frustrated because their attempts to delay the


progress of Government policy are being defeated.
I do not blame Labour Members for trying to delay the progress of Government legislation. That is a perfectly proper and legitimate action. But if it be proper and legitimate to delay Government measures by prolonged debate, hon. Members who do that must not come to this place and grumble when the Government bring forward a timetable motion. Either both are equally proper, or both are equally improper. One cannot have it both ways.
That view was clearly shared by the Labour Government when they introduced timetable motions on no fewer than 12 Bills—the Finance Bill 1974, the Industry Bill 1974, the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill 1974, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill 1975, the Dock Work Regulation Bill 1975, the Health Services Bill 1975, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill 1975, the Education Bill 1975, the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Scotland Bill, the Wales Bill, and the European Assembly Elections Bill. On all those matters of major constitutional importance the Labour Government produced timetable motions. Perhaps they were right, but if so their attitude today is 'wholly and manifestly wrong.

Mr. David Ennals: This has been a pretty bad day for the Secretary of State [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell hon. Members why. First, the right hon. Gentleman was told by the High Court that he acted illegally in sacking an area health authority—and presumably closing down St. John's and St. Olave's hospitals. I hope that tomorrow he will have the courtesy to explain to the House what action he intends to take following the High Court's decision.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I ask this also of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who made an interesting speech—that, in the whole period of Labour Government, from February 1974 to May 1979, only one Bill from the Department of Health and Social Security, which is the Department which we are discussing tonight, was made the subject of a timetable motion? That was done not to curtail time for debate but in order to give more time.

At that time, as the Secretary of State seems to have forgotten, we had a "hung" Committee, which absolutely refused to allow us to meet more than two mornings a week.
The motion before the House on the Health Service Bill on 20 July 1976 contained the following provision:
The Standing Committee on the Health Bill shall meet at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock on each day (except Mondays and Fridays) on which the House sits on or after the 21st day of July 1976".— [Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1606.]
That motion was intended only to ensure adequate time for discussion.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Ennals: Secondly, it is a bad day for the Secretary of State when he brings forward such a disgraceful motion as this. During five years the Labour Government put through the House such measures as the Child Benefit Act, a new pensions scheme, the invalid care allowance, a mobility allowance, the Children's Act 1975, the Adoption Act 1976, the Nursing Homes Act, the Pensioners Payments Act, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. and plenty more. We got all those measures through the House, yet on the first measure that the Secretary of State has introduced he has to try to reduce the time for debate.
It is the Government's own fault that they have got into this appalling mess. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, if there was a timetable problem, why did they not introduce the Bill earlier? They must have known that many of the issues had to be debated not only in the country but in Committee and, as eventually will happen, on the Floor of the House. It was the Government's own fault.
The Secretary of State was not himself made a member of the Committee, presumably because he trusted implicitly


in the judgment of the Minister of State, who, for reasons which I am sure we all understand, cannot attend night sittings. What a way for Ministers to run a Standing Committee! This is appalling.
It is monstrous that such an important Bill, affecting the lives of so many millions of citizens, should face the chopper. The Bill provides for a major restructuring of our social security system. It denies retirement pensioners and others a statutory right which the Labour Government gave them to share in rising living standards. Perhaps there will be no rising living standards under this Government, but it was a right which we gave the pensioners and which this Bill seeks to remove. It will affect occupational pensions, family income supplement, child benefit, disablement pensions, industrial injuries compensation, supplementary benefit, including the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and the whole appeals system, including appeals for war pensioners. As a war pensioner myself, I should have declared an interest earlier.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State has asked himself why the Labour Government succeeded in getting through their measures of social reform without resort to gagging the debate.

Mr. Orme: Because we had brilliant Ministers.

Mr. Ennals: Not just that, although I understand my right hon. Friend's remark. It was because the measures which we introduced were beneficial to our people—they were compassionate and caring. The Government are having trouble with this Bill because its main purpose is malevolent, because it is taking away the rights of people in a way that was never explained at the election. If it had been explained, I believe that the result of the election would have been very different.
The Bill is malevolent in damaging the social welfare of the largest group of all—the pensioners, who should be deeply sickened by the Secretary of State's decision, presumably agreed with his Cabinet colleagues, that a guillotine should be imposed on a measure of this dimension.
It was a little ironical to hear Lord Thorneycroft on the radio this morning, as I was shaving, telling us that Tory policy was a combination of toughness and compassion. I suppose that the noble Lord has thus divided the Cabinet into those who are tough and those who are compassionate. However, I have not noticed any of them queueing up for the title of "compassionate". They wish to be "toughies", and the Secretary of State himself is one of the toughies. He has cut pension entitlements, he is freezing child benefits, he has threatened—to do him justice he is not doing it in this Bill but will need another Bill—to slash unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and supplementary benefit. We are glad that those cuts will not be made in this Bill, but the Secretary of State has not said that they will not be put into effect.

Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not a case of the Government freezing child benefit, but that they have cut it in real terms by not increasing it? Child benefit is already worth£1 less in real terms than when the Government came to office.

Mr. Ennals: I did not develop the argument, but I am happy to follow what my hon. Friend says. I agree that the Government are doing that—first by cancelling the November increase, then by not having an increase this April, and thirdly by putting a cloud over the decision whether there will be an increase next November. That must mean that family support in real terms will decrease, and the faster inflation rises the more rapidly will it decrease.
The right hon. Gentleman has been doing his stuff as a toughie and showing that he can hit people where it hurts. At the general election he talked a lot about caring, but that election is light years away from the present situation. Another of my successors—I must admit that they are rather a rum lot—the Minister of State, Treasury, seemed to be the only Minister ready over the weekend to defend the Prime Minister and the unacceptable face of Toryism. He made a remarkable statement, which is relevant to what we are discussing tonight. He attacked those within his own party who were
in the grip of an alien economic dogma which takes a caring, even a paternalistic, position".


My God, those are strong words! "Caring" is now "alien" by modern Tory standards. The hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking as a Treasury Minister. As I have said before, the right hon. Gentleman, from the moment he became Secretary of State, has never behaved like a Secretary of State for Social Services. He has behaved as it he were still a Treasury Minister.
The Minister of State, Treasury said that the country had chosen the sharper medicine which the Government were offering. It is not medicine. It is poison. It is strychnine. I believe that tonight's motion shows on which side of the great divide the Secretary of State is. He is a hawk, though perhaps sometimes in dove's clothing, through and through. It is disgraceful that he is determined to reduce the time of Parliament to consider this measure, important as it is.
The right hon. Gentleman challenged me about the Health Services Bill of 1976, which one must accept was a controversial measure. Yet he has not challenged the fact that we introduced a timetable motion only to give the House time to discuss it. It would be monstrous if this Parliament were to decide tonight—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does that point also cover the guillotining of the Lords' amendments?

Mr. Ennals: I am afraid that I cannot answer that. It would be out of order for me to do so. I am saying that it is wrong of the Secretary of State, his ministerial colleagues and those of his Cabinet colleagues who support him, to decide to impose a guillotine on a Bill which makes fundamental changes. I do not deny that some parts of it are good, but some parts are malevolent and damaging to the interests of the poorest and most needy people in our society. To rise, as he did, and say that the time of Parliament to debate the Bill must be cut is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: I have spent many a long and happy hour during the past five weeks in Committee Room 12. It is a matter of great regret to me that tonight we shall have to pass a timetable motion because of the way in which Opposition Members have con-

ducted themselves in that Committee Room.
It is about a week less one hour since we were about to go into Committee Room 12 at 9 o'clock and were due to remain there until six minutes to 12 the following day. On 22 January, when we first met, we met from 10.30 am until 1 pm and we discussed the sittings motion. Two days later we met again on the Thursday at 10.30 am, and again we discussed the sittings motion very nearly until the end of that sitting at 1 pm.
We have heard certain remarks from Opposition Members about the conduct of Ministers and attendances in Committee. I am sure that the House will not take it amiss if I go through some of the performances that I have observed during the 60 hours or so that I have sat there. I have sat mostly in silence, my well-known reticence greatly to the fore, because I thought that this was a Committee in which I could educate myself by listening to the remarks, comments and, indeed, the wisdom offered by Labour Members.
The Opposition are led by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). It is of particular interest to me to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, because one of my ancestors was the Member of Parliament for Salford. From 1832 to 1857, Joseph Brotherton had the previlege of representing that borough. I believe that his major contribution to the House was that he used to make sure that it went to bed fairly early. Therefore, he too would approve of the timetable motion that we are discussing and which we shall pass tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman has basically made somewhat niggly contributions to our discussions. He seemed to be more interested in making personal points, particularly about my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, than in taking the argument to its logical conclusion, unlike some of his hon. Friends who serve on the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). His right hon. Friend shows a considerable knowledge of the subject, and he is by no means loth to air that knowledge in the Committee. I imagine that if we were to add up the column inches in Hansard of those who have contributed to


our Committee discussions, we would probably find that the right hon. Member for Brent, East has contributed more than any other, in length if not in substance.
I see sitting on the Opposition Benches the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) He is the light relief paraded by the Opposition during our time upstairs. I notice that the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Mitchell), who is one of our joint Chairmen, is no longer present. That is a pity, because I should like to pay tribute to the way in which he handles our affairs in general and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North in particular. Again, a study of the record of our deliberations will show that on numerous occasions the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has been brought to order by the Chair. He indulges in brinkmanship to such an extent that it would make John Foster Dulles appear to be a very cautious man indeed.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North tells us that more is going on in his constituency than in any other constituency in the country. He goes through the hierarchy of all the committees in his constituency, and as the Chairman begins to rise to his feet he says in that lovely lilting voice of his "But, of course, I realise, Mr. Chairman, that if I go further along that road you will rule me out of order." Then he goes off again at another tangent. That is an amusing contribution to our discussion, but not, I fear, of great use to progress on the Bill.
There are two other Labour Members who I believe have tried to make serious contributions to our deliberations. If I may echo the words of the right hon. Member for Salford, West, I hope that I shall not do them any harm by giving praise to them. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is well known for his activities in the Child Poverty Action Group. I remember three or four years ago doing a radio broadcast with him, and I realised then what an extraordinarily nice and sincere man he was. He has a tremendous grasp of his subject. Most of his interventions are very pertinent and to the point. He performs the duty of opposition exceptionally well in that he probes and pushes and makes

sure that the Minister gives the answer that he is seeking.
In that the hon. Gentleman is aided greatly by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I did not know the hon. Gentleman very well until the Committee started sitting five long weeks ago. Again, he shows a remarkable knowledge of his subject, even though he moved an amendment very formally indeed at our last sitting which his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East took over so that he could have time to study it and see what he was talking about. However, having studied it he came across very well.
The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), on the very first amendment that was proposed, gave us a most interesting talk on maternity benefits as paid in Albania, Taiwan and Manchuria. I think that she went through most of the 131 countries that appeared on the league table of who pays what. It was educational, but the vast majority of what she said was not germane to the discussion of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis) has also made contributions to our discussions. I am happy to say, for our sake, that they were not as long as some of those of his right hon. and hon. Friends, but they were none the worse for that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that the Bill contained 18 clauses and 5 schedules. After 60 hours and 14—

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to his contribution to the Committee proceedings?

Mr. Brotherton: I shall do so with the greatest pleasure. I have regarded the Bill as giving me the opportunity not only to look at the legislation but to be educated. I was invited to intervene by the hon. Member for Birkenhead on his amendment. I made a brief intervention. The hon. Member had so thoroughly destroyed his own amendment that there was nothing that I could usefully contribute, so I resumed my place. It must be remembered that it is not always he who makes the most noise who contributes most to the Committee proceedings. It is by my assiduous attention and support for the Government in passing


this necessary legislation that I am rendering a good service to my constituency, to my Government and to the nation.
I digress. I am like the right hon. Member for Salford, West and some of his hon. Friends. I allow myself to be led astray. I was speaking about the form of the Bill. There are 18 clauses and 5 schedules. After 60 hours of discussion, where are we? We have reached clause 5. We still have 13 clauses to discuss, and we are still discussing schedule 2, which is the meat of the Bill. Schedule 2 contains the vast majority of the pages in the Bill, and we are still ploughing our way through it.
When he proposed the motion, my right hon. Friend mentioned the remarkable change of attitude and the change of pace in Committee proceedings last Thursday afternoon after the Business Statement. Until 4.30 pm last Thursday, progress was still very slow. Comparatively, after that time, we made tremendous progress. That gives the game away.
I believe that the hon. Members for Birkenhead and Stockport, North have tried to make positive contributions to the deliberations, but other Labour Members have been filibustering and delaying for the sake of it. The Secretary of State had no option but to introduce this motion, and I am confident that the House will support it tonight.

Mr. Frank Field: I should like to add a number of reasons to those already put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for opposing the guillotine motion.
I begin, not by following the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brother-ton), but by taking up the challenge thrown out by the Secretary of State about the length of time that we have spent discussing the Bill. He suggested that we had spent enough time on it and that this was an ordinary Bill and ranked with any other Bill in regard to the guillotine motion.
In developing that argument—obviously he had other engagements and did not have the time to listen fully to the debate —he showed appalling ignorance of British history. Over the past 400 years this Chamber has been concerned with extending rights. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries our main concern in

Parliament was to extend our legal rights before the courts. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries we were concerned with extending our political rights, the franchise and our economic and welfare rights. What is so special about the measure that we have spent so many hours discussing in Committee is that, for the first time, rights are being taken away.
The Leader of the House is to wind up the debate, and I offer him a challenge. I ask him to name one measure in this area, put forward by a Tory Government, a Liberal Government or a Labour Government, which has reduced people's rights since the Poor Law Amendment Act came into force in 1834. That is the measure of the Bill that we have been debating. Up to now, every Government, whatever their political complexion, have talked about extending the rights of people, whether middle class or working class. The extent of the reactionary revolution of this Government is seen by the nature of the Bill. On other occasions Governments have put forward guillotine motions for good reasons. Can we honestly vote for a guillotine motion tonight, when, for the first time in 400 years, we are cutting back on people's rights? I repeat my challenge. I ask whether any Government have put forward a measure which has cut back on people's welfare rights in the manner in which this Bill seeks to do it. If the hon. Member can name one such measure, I shall be happy to vote with the Government tonight.
The loss of rights can be seen in four ways. There are many others which I am sure hon. Members will develop, but for the sake of brevity I shall deal with only four. First, the Bill cuts the rights of pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West has already talked about the pledge—which was not only talked about but was enacted by the Labour Government—to increase pensions in line with earnings or prices, whichever was the greater. He reminded the House of the effect of that on the living standards of pensioners. If we had operated under the old Tory formula, pensions today would be £5 lower.
If the measure which is being debated in Committee were on the statute book, and if this month the Government had to bring forward a pension uprating because


earnings were running ahead of prices, pensions for a married couple would be increased by an extra 50p compared with the prices formula. The Government are cutting the rights of pensioners and all other claimants on long-term benefits. We are talking about cutting back the entitlement of one in four and one in live people in Britain.
We are also cutting back on claimants' rights—those dependent upon supplementary benefit. One might not have thought that to be a serious infringement of living standards if one had just read the White Paper on the proposed reform of the supplementary benefits scheme. In that White Paper we are told that only "a small number" will lose, but, thanks to our probing, both by parliamentary questions and in Committee, we now know what the Government mean by "a small number". Approximately 1¾ million people will lose under the scheme, and only 750,000 will gain.
Compliments have rightly been paid to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security for the way in which she has dealt with the Committee proceedings. However, a good head and a pleasant smile are not an effective cover for what she proposed in Committee. She said that she would like to have proposed more but that there was no money available. That was a statement from a member of a Government who, in the last Budget, reduced taxation by £4·6 billion and ensured that the richest 7 per cent. of the community picked up 34 per cent. of the tax cuts, and the poorest 10 per cent.—some of the people with whom we are dealing in the Bill—managed to corner 2 per cent.
So much, then, for the argument that there was no money available to implement a reform more generous than on what is called the nil-cost basis. There has been an erosion and a cutting back of the rights of those on supplementary benefit.
The working poor are also lined up for the chop in this measure. As some hon. Members will know, those in full-time work are not eligible for supplementary benefit, but under the present rule they can get what are called exceptional needs payments to help out with a clothing bill or with a pressing fuel bill.

As a result of the cut in the rights available to those who may be said to earn their poverty in this country, their entitlement will be removed. That is the third group that will lose entitlement.
The last group that I want to mention are the school leavers—those who in the summer holidays will lose their right to supplementary benefit. Here we are talking of the disfranchising of well over 400,000 young people. The hon. Lady and I represent an area in which large numbers of young people will leave school the summer and for whom there will be no jobs. But they will have no right to benefit, as compared with those who left school last year. In my constituency there are now well over 7,500 people unemployed, and there are 202 vacancies. Those young people who join the dole queue in the early summer will, thanks to this measure, now lose their right to supplementary benefit.
This is a measure the like of which Parliament has never debated before. For 400 years Parliament has not been concerned with cutting back on rights. Parliament's job has been to extend people's rights. That is a powerful reason why there should be no guillotine motion on a Bill which seeks to cut back on rights for the first time in 400 years.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the people with whom we are dealing in the Bill. We are talking about some of the very poorest people in the community. The supplementary benefit system is the safety net for those who are, in a very real way, down on their luck. About 8 million claims a year for supplementary benefit are met, and 5 million people are regularly dependent on what they can gain each week from the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
In its evidence to the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth, the SBC reported in the following terms about the living standards of some of the very poorest people in Britain. It pointed out that the benefit paid out by the Commission
strongly suggests that the supplementary benefits scheme provides, particularly for families with children, incomes that are barely adequate to meet their needs at a level that is consistent with normal participation in the life of the relatively wealthy society in which they live. This impression is borne out by the extent to which we find it necessary to make use of our discretionary powers to provide


more than the minimum levels of benefit determined by the scale rates.
At another point the Commission reported that
the overriding priority in reforming the supplementary benefits scheme is to increase the level of benefits for families with children and for all claimants who have to live on the lower ordinary scale rates".
That is the report from those in charge of today's poor law scheme.
One crucial way in which the commission has tried to take the pressure out of the system is by awarding exceptional needs payments, particularly for clothing. My right hon. Friend stressed this. If we consult what we have called in the Committee the "red missal" to see who will, and who will not, get their rights to clothing grants, we find that when the new regulations are in force—we have not seen them—the purchase of essential clothing, where the need has arisen other than by wear and tear, will not be allowed.
At the present time most grants are given because clothing just wears out, and claimants have to manage on 89p a day to cover all the needs of children between the ages of 5 and 10. No wonder the claimants cannot cover their clothing needs! But up to now they have been helped. When the Bill comes into force, if the regulations are as we think they will be, those claimants will be disfranchised. That is why we have been pushing and struggling to see the regulations, so that we may debate in detail how the everyday circumstances of Britain's poor will be affected adversely by the Government's measure.
I oppose the guillotine motion also because the Bill will cut back on poor people's legal rights. The disputes of poor people—if they are not caught catching something off the back of a lorry—are settled not in courts of law, where our disputes are settled, but in the tribunals of the Welfare State. The Bill, in an effective and vicious way, cuts back on the scope of independent adjudication.
Up to the present time a claimant has been able to go to an appeal tribunal to dispute a decision by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If that decision has not been based in law—in other words, if it is not governed by the Act but merely by the regulation in the A code, as it is called—the claimant has a

good chance of overturning the decision and improving his lot and that of his children. But under the terms of the Bill the regulations in relation to what were previously discretionary policies will become law in the same way as the Bill will become law. The scope for independent adjudication will therefore be cut drastically. That is why so much of our time has been spent in pleading for sight of those regulations which, in some awful way, as we believe, will affect the living standards of claimants.
I oppose the guillotine motion because there are some massive issues in the Bill that we have not even debated. For example, we have not yet debated the correct rates for children, yet the hon. Lady and many of my hon. Friends know how vital an issue this is. We have not yet discussed how Governments of both major parties, Labour and Tory, have-discriminated unfairly against the longterm unemployed—the very poorest of those on supplementary benefit. There has been no mention at all of child benefits and of the importance that many of us on each side of the Chamber attach to those benefits.
I hope that the Government will give way on something this evening. I expect that they will carry the guillotine motion, with or without my vote, but I hope that they will say something positive about the regulations, because these will have an enormous effect on the living standards of Britain's poor. We must in some way debate those regulations in detail, whether in the Bill or in a supplementary Bill, or before a Select Committee. This is not just to try to trip the Government. We can do it within their nil-cost corset, if that is what they wish, but we can make the Bill a better one if we are given time.
It is crucial that we have a full debate on the new body. I voted with the Government to wind up the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I expressed the feeling of my constituents. I expressed their hatred of the present system. They do not regard it with the same favour as the academics in the poverty lobby do. They regard it as they did the old unemployment assistance board, and that is the name they still use.
I look for something better from this Bill If something better is to come from


the Bill, clause 8 is crucial, because it will lay down the powers of the new body. I hope that we can debate that fully and extend in a real way—not in a way that threatens the Government, whoever may be in Government at the time —the independent standing of that body, to enable it to speak for those in our community who are too often silent. Again I make the plea. Will we be given concessions on the regulations? Will we be given concessions on debating the new body?
I return to my first point. For 400 years this Parliament has concerned itself with extending rights. This Bill, for the first time, cuts back on the rights of the poorest in our community. If that is not a reason for opposing a guillotine motion, I do not know what is.

Mr. Raymond Ellis: I am not surprised that the Government are now, through the use of the guillotine, seeking to stifle further thorough examination of the Bill. They do so, in my opinion, because we in Committee are getting far too close to the heart of the matter for their comfort. Throughout the process of our analysis of each clause of the Bill we have been able, by probing amendment after probing amendment, gradually to expose the Bill for the king-sized Treasury rip-off that it is.
From the very first day we debated clause 1(1) we were told not to pay too much attention to the written word. Instead, we were told that we should place our blind and unquestioning trust in this Government. On that first day we were given vague assurances on the £26 per year shortfall; yet eventually, four sittings later, the Government reneged on their commitment to pay that shortfall and have demonstrated just how trustworthy they are.
Whenever my hon. Friends on the Committee managed to expose individual clauses and subsections for the hollow platitudes that they turned out to be, the senior Minister on the Committee, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), constantly told us that it was our duty to place our abiding trust and faith in the Secretary of State, on whom

the Bill will confer absolute discretionary powers.
All the authorities I have read on the subject, from Walter Bagehot downwards, indicated to me, in no uncertain terms, that it is the duty of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to regard all Government-sponsored legislation with the utmost mistrust. That is our task. However, I well understand the confusion of the right hon. Member for Daventry on the matter. After all, he spent so little time in opposition that he may well have forgotten that principle.
Whenever I study the Bill I am reminded of the Christmas treat that traditionally I have to give to my children—nowadays, it is my grandchildren, unfortunately. I always have to take them to see Walt Disney's film "Jungle Book". Our favourite scene in that film is where the poor little jungle boy Mowgli is being hypnotised by the snake. While poor little Mowgli is being enmeshed in the serpent's coils the serpent is repeating "Trust in me. Trust in me". How much the Bill is like that!
When we ask how the powers of discretion will be used we are told to trust in the Secretary of State. When we ask about the clause that says
To be determined as the Secretary of State deems to be expedient
we are told to trust in the Secretary of State. We are told that the Secretary of Sate will have powers to make and break regulations as he sees fit. When v e gently inquire as to what those regulations are likely to be, we are told to trust in the Secretary of State.
We are told that the earnings relationship is to be abolished and that the Secretary of State will have reference to prices only when we gently ask which index, if any, he will use, we are told to trust in the Secretary of State and not to worry.
I know that comparisons are invidious and I certainly do not wish to give offence to anyone at this time—least of all the "snake". But unlike Mowgli in "Jungle Book" we are not so easily hypnotised. As time goes on it becomes more apparent that this Bill is the confidence trick to end all confidence tricks.
The Secretary of State is not a member of the Standing Committee; he is not


even present now. My guess is that in our search to find him to place our trust in him—unless the guillotine prevents us —we shall eventually unwrap that last clause of the Bill and find out that we have a gift-wrapped vacuum. I fear that by that time the Secretary of State will have been spirited away by the Prime Minister. Of course, that is the con trick of all time—it is called "Find the Lady".

Mr. David Myles: I am very pleased to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I almost missed doing so, as a relatively new Member. This is my first experience of such a debate.
The tactics that have been employed by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the handling of this Bill have been quite fascinating. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) almost brought tears to my eyes a few moments ago. However, in Committee, all through the night on a couple of occasions and all through the next forenoon as well, he quite frequently could not refrain from laughter. As a relative newcomer, I found that the peculiar thing about it that I could not understand what was so funny about the Bill's contents:

Mr. Field: It was Tory Members sleeping.

Mr. Myles: I am glad to have the hon. Member's explanation. However, as I was sitting behind Tory Members, I did not see them asleep; nor did I hear them called to order for that indiscretion.

Mr. Brotherton: Does my hon. Friend agree that in no way would either of our two admirable Chairmen allow any member of the Committee to do anything quite as out of order as to go to sleep?

Mr. Myles: Whether or not I was asleep, I was sorely tempted on a number of occasions to mention that had the proceedings been conducted under the rules of the radio programme "Just a Minute", in which repetition, hesitation and deviousness are not allowed, Opposition Members would most certainly have been ruled out of order and would not have been able to continue for even a minute. However, they managed to ramble on for an interminable time— especially the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
This evening the hon. Member mentioned the interests of brevity. Surely, the way in which he has demonstrated this evening that he can get across his point of view about these poor, needy people who are to be so disadvantaged by the Bill shows that he could have used that weapon of brevity to get his case across far more effectively than by almost putting even me to sleep throughout the night in the early part of the Committee stages.
I did not lengthen the Committee proceedings. I did not rise to speak. As a relatively new Member—I was about to say "young", but the word is "new"— I felt it my duty to sit quietly and to listen and learn, rather than to hope that others would learn from listening to me.
I should like to say a word about the poor. I have been quite poor. I have seen many people in hill farming areas in Scotland who by no stretch of the imagination could be described as rich. They have sustained themselves almost by living off the land—eating rabbits, hares and the occasional braxy sheep. Such conditions have bred strong and resolute countrymen, who have sustained this country through war and peace for many years.
Human society can progress only in an evolutionary upward direction against a certain degree of adversity. If we take away all adversity so that the so-called poor have an adequate lifestyle, whether they do anything or not, we shall not be doing a service to this country or to humanity.
The Bill will draw in the reins slightly and provide a better base for looking after the genuine needy. Therefore, it will do a tremendous service to the nation. I have pleasure in supporting the timetable motion. We must get the Bill through to start building the broad base that has been eroded over the years.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) on being the first Conservative Member to have spoken in favour of the Bill. Traditionally, in guillotine debates two arguments are deployed by those in favour of the Bill. One is to say that it is a good measure and the second is that we should get on with it quickly. The hon. Gentleman said that this was a good measure. I


am not sure whether the Government Front Bench would agree with him in his remarks about the poor.
The Secretary of State seemed to have little understanding of what has gone on in Committee. He suggested that I had been delaying the proceedings. Then he seemed to suggest that both my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I had been probing the Bill sensibly. If he had read the proceedings carefully, he would have had some idea of what we were talking about. He suggested that we were delaying and speeding up proceedings at the same time. I suggest that that is somewhat difficult to understand.
The truth is that the Secretary of State has not considered the Bill carefully at all. He complained that we had reached only clause 5 and got half way through schedule 2. If he studied the Bill carefully he would see that almost all the meat is in those parts of the Bill to which I have referred. The Bill makes provision for enabling regulations to be made. If, instead of making provision for regulations to be made, the Secretary of State had put them in the Bill as clauses, the Bill would probably have contained between 60 and 70 clauses. If so, the progress so far would be considered remarkable. If Opposition Members had wanted to delay progress on the Bill we would not have made anything like the progress that has so far been made.
All contributions by Opposition Members have been constructive and probing either of the Bill or of other information that hon. Members have a right to have from the Government. If the Government took account of the way in which they ought to be trying to get a Bill of this kind through the House by making occasional concessions when good arguments are put forward, they would have been able to make really rapid progress. But we have had hardly one concession.
There are 10 or 12 major interest and pressure groups that are concerned with the Bill. They have all been feeding information into the Committee. It is remarkable that not one Conservative Back Bencher has taken the trouble to take up the issues. The one exception is the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), who has tabled one amendment. He is the only Conservative Member on the Back

Benches in the Committee Room who has taken the interest to probe.
It is remarkable, but hardly any Conservatives have been present for the debate. The Government Whip in Committee has been telling his Back Benchers not to speak. Tonight he has been in a panic. He has been dashing hither and thither trying to persuade his colleagues to make speeches. The truth is that hardly any Conservative Members are concerned to ensure that people receive their benefits. It seems that their concern is to take benefits away from people.
We are sorry to learn that the Minister of State has been too sick to address the Committee and to answer our questions for most of the proceedings at night. However, he has found it possible to appear on television and to engage in press conferences. It seems that he has been trying to outdo the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) in his attack on scroungers. The Minister of State should be trying to ensure that people receive their rights and obtain the benefits to which they are entitled. He has done little or nothing about that in Committee. He has been intent upon getting publicity throughout the country. It seems that he wants to prove that he can be harsher than most Tories. Bearing in mind his ministerial responsibilities, he is a disgrace.
I turn to some of the major issues with which we have to concern ourselves. We have found it almost impossible to ascertain from the Government their policy about taking away benefit from the families of strikers. We all know that the Tory Party keeps saying that it will take action, but until tonight we had not received a categorical assurance from the Government that they would not introduce such a measure by the back door by means of the Bill.

Mr. Myles: The hon. Gentleman has attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Does he accept that my hon. Friend has received a remarkable amount of support for his point of view from ordinary rank and file members of the public?

Mr. Bennett: The most remarkable feature about the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and the Minister of State is that they are trying to create a myth that


there are far more scroungers than those who deserve help and do not get it. There are more who underclaim benefits than those who overclaim. That should be recognised.

Mr. Ennals: When the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was receiving tremendous publicity about scroungers he said that countless cases had been brought to his attention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and I asked for the evidence to be sent to us. We analysed the hundreds of instances that had been brought to the hon. Gentleman's attention. Only a handful of them amounted to anything that could be called scrounging. The hon. Gentleman had a most successful publicity drive, but in terms of anything that was real there was nothing.

Mr. Bennett: I agree with my right hon. Friend's comments. The Minister of State is saying that his Department is hard pressed and does not have the resources to help people claim benefits. However, it is able to find resources to chase after those who are supposed to be defrauding it. When the Government announce that they are introducing more staff to catch VAT and income tax defrauders, we shall believe that there is some justice and even-handedness in the Government's approach.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Bennett: We took a long time in Committee to ascertain the Government's attitude to benefit for strikers' families. The major issue arose of what they would do about the pensions shortfall. Pensions were uprated last autumn and pensioners were robbed of about 50p this year. We know now that that will be for each year. It took a long time to get the Minister to come clean in Committee about that.
There are the questions of the maternity and death grants. Every year that goes by without uprating those benefits means that they lose their value. The Minister told us that it was up to the pensioners and those claiming the maternity and death grants to make sacrifices in order to get the economy right. As we have gone through area after area, the Minister has said that there is no money available to improve benefits. I challenge the Minister to tell us tonight the sac-

rifices that he expects people on his income and similar incomes to make in order to get the economy of the country right. If he could tell us that, we would have more sympathy when he says that it is up to the pensioners, the expectant mothers and the elderly who have problems raising the money to bury their dead to make sacrifices.
There is the problem of the fuel rebate scheme. By now, the Government should have told people about that scheme. They found it easy enough to announce that they wanted to put up gas prices and introduce an effective gas tax. Constituents have come to me and asked if they can be moved from their homes because their fuel costs are too high and they do not want to be there to face next winter's high fuel costs. It is time that the Government told people what they are going to do about a fuel subsidy for next winter, before more and more people are frightened into moving from dwellings where their heating costs are too high into cheaper dwellings. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have given no indications of what they will do about a fuel subsidy.
I suggest that the Government have not spent anything like enough time looking at the implications of taking away supplementary benefit from school leavers. We have been moving slowly in this country towards a uniform leaving date for all school leavers at the end of the Whitsun holidays. Now, with the way in which the benefit is drawn up, the Government are giving a major incentive to families with children on low incomes to let their children leave at Easter and not stop on for the last six or seven weeks in order to take exams and—hopefully—pass them. When the Minister held office in the Department of Education and Science, he put forward proposals to try to achieve a common leaving date. Yet, now, in this existence, he is making it less likely that children will stop on. If a child does stop on at school until Whitsun and does not get a job, that family will end up about £100—probably about £140—a year worse off.
During the passage of the Bill, realistic demands have been made on the Government to tell the House what they will do about child benefit. Yet we have heard nothing about that. There have even been pleas from the Tory women's conference


on that matter, yet there has been stunning silence. On all these matters, if there had been some information and concessions from the Government, they would have found that the Bill would have made reasonable progress. If the Minister wants to introduce this sort of measure, he must tell the country that there will be equality of sacrifice and he should not demand that the least well off —the pensioners, the sick and the poor— make all the sacrifices.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I am indeed pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). It was a pleasure that I had on many occassions during the discussions on the Education (No. 2) Bill in Committee, when for hour after hour I had the pleasure of hearing him, and seldom was I really bored. However, he may have strayed from his usual high standard of debate tonight. It was unfair of him to say that Conservative Members are not concerned about people getting benefits. He is re-echoing the old myth that only Labour Members have a monopoly of compasssion. That is not so.

Mr. Ennals: Prove it.

Mr. Pawsey: Conservative Members also feel for their constituents. I shall dwell on that point later in my speech.
I served with some pleasure on the Committee which considered the Education (No. 2) Bill. I found that experience valuable, informative, interesting and stimulating. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stockport, North will agree with me. It was an experience that is not to be forgotten. I can now readily appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) meant. He said that friendships made during the long and arduous hours of Committee debate continued throughout the lifetime of not one, but several Parliaments. I certainly feel that to be the case.
One of the effects of a guillotine motion is that it concentrates the mind. Before the guillotine came down, a word was never used when a sentence could be found. A sentence was never used if a paragraph could be found. If Opposition Members had an opportunity to rewrite the Ten Commandments they would

need not two but 20 tablets of stone. It is a mistake to equate the quality of debate with its length.
It is also only fair to remove some of the hyprocrisy that surrounds the argument on motions of this sort. We should remember that all Governments have introduced guillotine motions in order to get business through the House.
I recognise clearly that it is the job of an Opposition to oppose. By the same token, an Opposition must be responsible. I am sure that Opposition Members will agree that it is not right for a minority to delay the wishes of the majority. Perhaps we should ask ourselves how far a minority should go in preventing majority legislation from being enacted. I understand that the Committee has completed clause 5 and schedule 2, after about 60 hours of deliberation. Clauses 16 to 18 are still to be discussed. Three more complete schedules await discussion. However, the Committee has sat for at least two full nights. One may ask whether the Government are not entitled to bring forward such a recommendation after 60 hours of discusssion. I hope that hon. Members will accept it. It is also fair to remember that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated that no new clauses will be introduced.
The Bill should be enacted before the end of May so that social security benefits can be uprated at the appropriate time, in the autumn. No one should prevent that from taking place, for whatever reason. If the legislation is delayed, it will involve major administrative problems. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security will forgive me for saying that her Department already has administrative problems. I have written to her on several occasions about delays in the payment of child benefit. That has been a major problem in my constituency. I have received many complaints concerning the slowness and the inaccuracies that occur.
I do not wish to create further opportunities for more delays in the payment of those benefits. All hon. Members must be aware of the difficulties caused to families when they do not receive the appropriate child benefit. I make no apology for raising the issue of child benefit, nor for my defence of it. I am


a family man with six sons. My eldest son is 23 years old and my younger children are now 16.

Mr. Orme: That is special pleading, if ever a heard it.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that remark.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: As our children grow older, the benefits that should accrue to me are perhaps steadily diminishing. The hon. Member for Stockport, North is right in assuming that at least one on these Benches takes advantage of child benefit. My wife would be delighted to tell the hon. Member how much child benefit is appreciated in the Pawsey household.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Should not child benefit have been increased this year to take inflation into account? If it had been increased a little more than necessary, it would have done much to reduce the poverty trap.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Stockport, North will know my feelings on this issue. When we discussed clause 23 of the Education (No. 2) Bill, my argument was that it was wrong for child benefit to be used to defray part of the transport costs of getting children to school The hon. Member will recall—and I can say that without fear of contradiction because he was a diligent member of the Committee on that Bill—that I voted against clause 23. I crossed the Floor of the House as an indication of where I stood on the transport clause. I make no apology for expressing anxiety about child benefit I hope that the Government will take note of my anxiety about the delays in child benefit payments. I hope that they will do everything in their power to ensure that they are made promptly.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: In the interests of brevity, I shall not allow myself to be provoked by the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey). I forgive him for his lack of knowledge, since he is not a member of the Committee. I do not believe that he has studied the Bill. If

he had, he would not have treated it in that fashion.
We are not dealing with a simple enabling Bill to enable the Government to introduce regulations that might or might not alter benefits. We are dealing with a major piece of complicated legislation which dismantles the whole social security system. That view is held by many volunteer and statutory organisations.
I do not apologise for the time that we spent in Committee on the sittings motion. Only hours before that motion was moved we were confronted with an announcement that the estimated up-rating of benefits had fallen short by about 1·7 per cent. We rightly asked how we could go into a Committee on a Bill the first clause of which dealt with the uprating of benefits until we knew what the Government intended to do about shortfall. If the intention had been to honour their moral obligation, we should have accepted that.
Naturally, we probed, pushed and begged the Secretary of State to make a statement to the Committee about the Government's attitude to shortfall. We learnt the official Government attitude via a planted question. The minute we knew, discussion began. There was no question of filibustering. We made a genuine attempt to find out the Government's policy. When we discovered the policy, it was even worse than we feared, and so we continued with our speeches and probing.

Mr. Myles: Can the hon. Member explain why the Chairman has had to call him to order on a number of occasions for straying from the point? It seems that that has happened very frequently.

Mr. Stallard: I do not necessarily consider that that is any indictment. The fact that we are dealing with such a confusing and complicated Bill—and that has been admitted by both Front Benches —means that it is inevitable that hon. Members will stray from the point. I freely admit to a certain amount of confusion and lack of understanding.
We are faced with a Bill which tells us that regulations will be laid on almost every aspect of social security. But we have had no sight of any of these regulations. We are discussing the Bill in a


vacuum and in the absence of a major part of its content—the regulations. Therefore, it is natural that we should try to find out the extent of these regulations and the powers of the people who will implement them. What part will Parliament play in the regulations? These are a few of the issues which cannot be skimped.
It has been said that we have been debating the Bill for 50 to 60 hours. But already we have dealt with 50 to 60 amendments. Bearing in mind that our debates have included two major discussions, we have spent less than an hour on most of the amendments, and that does not seem a particularly long time.

Mr. Orme: Will my hon. Friend tell the House that when we were discussing clause 1 on the linkage of pensions with prices rather than earnings he spoke as the joint chairman of the all-party group in the House for pensioners, and as such he was reflecting a view that is shared on both sides of the House?

Mr. Stallard: That is absolutely true. I put forward the view that has been supported in early-day motions both in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament by hon. Members on both sides.
If right hon. and hon. Members had studied the Hansard reports of our Committee proceedings as closely as they claim, they would have seen that on many occasions Labour Members have maintained the quorum, even though that is a Government responsibility. We maintained the quorum in order to continue the discussion on these important matters. That did not happen when I was a Whip in a previous Government. The minute we lost the quorum, Conservative Members walked out of the Committee. Therefore, as we have maintained the quorum, the argument about our filibustering falls.
I am extremely concerned about the abolition of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. This is an area of contention between hon. Members, even on our side of the Committee. That is the way it should be. But we have all argued for the publication of the regulations and the lifting of secrecy on coding. We all want more benefits to be understood by more claimants. But I do not think that we

need to abolish the SBC in order to bring that about. Nor do we have to abolish the SBC in order to publish the regulations. Or is it to inform some claimants exactly how their benefits are arrived at?
It was not necessary to abolish this important and semi-independent buffer between the Executive and the claimant. That buffer often came down on the side of the claimant and it was not necessary to abolish it simply in order to do away with secrecy.
I argued that we should have maintained at least a strong element of discretion such as existed under the SBC. That discretion will disappear under the new regulations. I now argue that it is impossible to legislate for the various emergency and urgent needs payments and the circumstances that create those emergencies and urgencies in these regulations. There must be a certain amount of discretion. If the Government abolish discretion and institute a set of rigid regulations, they will create more difficulties. I contend that it will not be long before the Government will need to bring in a Bill amending this Bill in order to reintroduce that important element of discretion.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend has not touched upon the effect that the Bill will have on the disabled. Can he tell us how much time was spent discussing the effects of the Bill on the war disabled? Can he say how much attention was given to the loss there would have been to the 100 per cent. disabled war pensioner if, over the last five years, his pension had been linked only to prices and not to increases in earnings or prices, whichever was the more beneficial? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Committee gave enough attention to the problems of the disabled?

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I intend to mention the disabled. The whole area of discretion is important and could be discussed for a whole debate in this Chamber, let alone in less than an hour in Committee. That issue, together with the uprating of the maternity grant—a grant which still stands at £25 and which has not been uprated for many years—are important matters for many people. They merit


lengthy discussion, as does the death grant.
That grant has claimed the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Early-day motions have been signed by hundreds of hon. Members in support of uprating the death grant. There are 39 voluntary organisations linked in the Dignity and Death Alliance arguing for an uprating of the death grant. Those organisations have spent hours and months campaigning and arguing for this benefit and we are accused of filibustering because we spent less than one hour discussing these benefits and their uprating.
It is ludicrous for anyone to say that there has been any deliberate filibustering. There may have been an element of levity. That is inevitable in any Committee. But there has been serious discussion on the uprating of those benefits. We shall continue that discussion and the issues indicate the seriousness of our discussions in Committee.
Even more serious is the effect of these complicated regulations on the important issue of single homeless. It is not a party issue since there is all-party interest in some aspects of single homelessness. However, when it comes to the vote, arguments from Tory Members disappear. The Labour Party is left to prove—as has always been known—that it is the party of caring and compassion and that the crocodile tears are shed by Conservative Members. On successive occasions in Committee we have seen Conservative Members who have signed early-day motions and spoken on these issues voting against a minor amendment to modify— not dramatically change—the present position. Not one of those hon. Members has deviated from the line laid down by the Whips.
Therefore, it is left to us to argue about the heating allowance—which also affects millions of old people and must be the most relevant possible argument at the moment. It is not just the heating allowance but the introduction of a comprehensive fuel policy, which has yet to be discussed. Will it be included in regulations? We do not know—the Government have not let us see any. We are entitled to probe and to know what goes into the regulations, but when we try they bring forward a guillotine.
The pattern of the Government is to time the guillotine to fall just when the

discussion is becoming most embarrassing to them. We saw this with the Education (No. 2) Bill. Just as we approached the embarrassing public discussion of the effect of Government cuts on school meals and transport, the guillotine was introduced. In this Bill, we are about to discuss the effects on the disabled, the long-term unemployed, the single homeless and the mentally handicapped, and the composition of the new advisory body and all the regulations. These could be embarrassing areas for the Government and that is when they introduce the guillotine.
Who is next? At what point will the Government guillotine the Housing Bill? Probably just before we discuss the rent increases. All embarrassing debates have to be truncated and shovelled into two or three sittings. Far from our filibustering, if it had not been for us there would have been no serious discussion at all of benefits, uprating and the welfare of millions of the most vulnerable in our community. That is what we are about and will continue to be about. I hope that the House will reject the motion to allow us to continue that process.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I entered the House in Opposition—

Mr. Field: The hon. Member still is.

Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure that I need that kind of help.
I came into the House when my party was in Opposition, when it was easy and entertaining to listen to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) ranting and raging about how shocking it was that he had to put guillotines on five Bills in an evening—or perhaps only one or two. It is entertaining to listen to and it is entertaining to make a speech in Opposition saying that 60 hours so far have not been enough and that 30 hours to come will mean that it is impossible to debate matters of interest. I find that a seducing argument from the Opposition Benches, but not from these.
The hon. Member for St. Pancas, North (Mr. Stallard) said that the Bill dismantles the social security system as we know it, but it is important that the Bill should be the start of rebuilding the system as


we want to have it. No one who has read the written answer in column 312 of today's Hansard about percentage increases in social security benefits would argue that it is a consistent pattern. As the hon. Gentleman said, the maternity grant and the death grant are alone in having been unchanged since 1975. The Committee discussion so far, which has included the amendment on the maternity grant being extended on a non-contributory basis in time, is a step forward. I hope that the Government will soon be able to extend the death grant to the very elderly, who do not get it at the moment. Progress can be made in small stages.
The reason why I support the motion is that it will make it possible to bring back to the Floor of the House a Bill that does not and was not designed to cover all the issues of social security, so that on Report and Third Reading we will be able to put down markers and make arguments about how improvements can be made.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he was kept off the Committee, since he could have put down some effective markers and made better contributions than some of his hon. Friends who were on the Committee?

Mr. Bottomley: The simple answer is that I find it more interesting to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee because Committee stages of foreign affairs issues tend to be taken on the Floor of the House and I do not have to spend all my time listening to the speeches of Opposition Members, first, because if I agree with them there is no need to listen, and, secondly, if I disagree I do not want to listen anyway.
I hoped that this Bill would put forward the arguments in regard to child benefit that I have put forward before I entered the House, when I was in opposition, and now that I am supporting the Government. It is important to recognise that we shall not achieve the increases in child benefit that we want until we can get across the message about the mess that our social security system is in.

That was a mess which was left by the previous Government, and the Government before them. If one goes all the way back to 1945, one will see that no Government have had sufficient pressure put on them, both within the House and outside, by people who are informed about the mess that we are in at present, as well as the opportunities for the future. The sooner that we can get rid of this Bill and get on to dealing with the major changes and reconstruction in social security, the better.
For example, if the timetable motion is passed and we come on to Report and Third Reading, I should like to raise the question why the TUC, in its leaflet "Save our Children", talks about school transport, school meals and other things but omits the two vital words "child benefit". That is obviously a slip, but it should not be possible for the TUC to make that kind of slip.

Mr. Field: If on Report there is an amendment about indexing child benefit, does it mean that the hon. Gentleman will not make a TUC slip and will vote with us?

Mr. Bottomley: I never want to commit myself in advance, but that sounds like the kind of thing of which I would be very much in favour.
Incidentally, I do not believe that anyone on the Opposition Front Bench failed to vote in favour of the Labour Government's objection to indexing child benefit when the matter was raised in the last Parliament. Almost without exception, and given the instructions by its Whips as well as the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), the whole of the Labour Party fell into line and voted in the No Lobby.

Mr. Ennals: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be unwise to index child benefit until it is at a proper level? Surely he must know perfectly well that that was the reason why we have waited for the time when it would be proper to index child benefit.

Mr. Bottomley: I suspect that in a quiet way the right hon. Gentleman is really saying that he is awaiting the arrival of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who would make sure that indexation is the least that


happens. There is not the slightest question of child benefit falling in real terms or of it falling behind the increases in other tax allowances.
The CBI, like many other bodies, recognised the importance of raising child benefit with regard to the incentive to work argument, but it also recognised, quite rightly, that the public sector borrowing requirement is affected by an increase in child benefit and, more than that, that because of the switch from tax allowance to cash payment public expenditure appears to rise. Obviously, in terms of Government accounting, it does rise. But the PSBR—this is an argument that I know will be of interest to my right hon. Friends, because I am sure that it is one that they put forward at Cabinet meetings—is affected just as much by an increase in child benefit as it is by an increase in tax allowances.
The real question is, what is the right thing to do? We all know that the right thing to do is to increase child benefit. However, the problem is how that will be seen in the country, and it is seen not too well, because some people believe that there is still a child tax allowance. We know that that has been removed. Some people believe that because child benefit rose by £1 last year, everyone with a child is £1 better off. They forget about the abolition of the residual child tax allowance.
Those are the sorts of arguments on which we should be spending 60 hours in Committee and two days on Report. It is vital that we pass the Bill, with a debate on Report and on Third Reading. Let us at least try to reconstruct a social security system that tries to make sure that help is given where it is needed.
If we find that we do not have enough money for all our aims and ambitions, we must face the real questions. Do we want to give arbitrary increases in pensions, or do we want to decide the right level of increase of pensions, and the right level of increase for child benefit? It is as important to give aid to pensioners as it is to give aid to families with children. In the years since 1955 we have signally failed to do that. I hope that we do better in the future.

Miss Jo Richardson: The hon Member for Woolwich, West (Mr

Bottomley) made some interesting points, which I am sure we would all be happy to debate. However, he overlooks the fact that, in our view, the Government are bringing forward the Bill as their idea of reviewing the social security system. Even if we rush through the Bill and it reaches the statute book, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to discuss child benefits and pensions. I believe that when the Bill is passed the Government will then say that they have tidied up the system and that that is the end of the matter.
I do not wish to malign the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that he has not read the Bill, because even if he has read it he will find it difficult to understand. The Bill is vastly complicated and extremely technical. Some Labour Members are experts on social security matters, and in Committee even they questioned the meaning of parts of a schedule.
I may be in a minority of one, but I do not object in principle to the timetabling of Bills. I can see a case for whichever party is in government discussing at the appropriate time a proper and adequate timetable motion. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I argued for that, although my argument did not hold sway. However, I am opposed to the Government's bringing forward a guillotine motion in the middle of deliberations on a Bill, because it puts the matter out of focus. If there had been a timetable motion at the beginning of the proceedings on the Bill we could have decided, in the proper manner, which were the most important clauses and schedules and allocated the right amount of time to them.
We are now faced with a few more weeks of Committee sittings and with having to make last-minute and rapid arrangements on which clauses should be discussed and in which sittings. I do not object in principle to the timetabling of Bills but I do object to the way in which the guillotine motion has been put forward now.
Many references have been made to the importance of the Bill. One of the ways in which that was illustrated was in the amount of run-up to the Bill. First, there was the review, and the social assistance document was published. That document provided all sorts of organisations throughout the country with the


opportunity to produce evidence and to give their views on what the document should contain. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, we then had a measly six pages from the Government as their contribution to the discussions, and finally the Bill. We spent a good deal of time and placed ourselves very well on the question of the review and the social assistance document and the responses to it.
We then suddenly galloped forward into an ill-considered Bill which is difficult for us to understand, and much more difficult for the people outside who are wondering what is to happen to their benefits. After all, it is for them that we are legislating. We are not legislating for a cosy group of people in this place; we are legislating for hundreds of thousands of people in different groups, all of whom will be affected by the passing of one regulation or of one part of one schedule or of one clause. We are therefore right to give the utmost consideration to the way in which the Bill is drafted.
The Minister for Social Security took exception to the fact that we referred to his absence. It has always seemed to me that if someone has to be absent for a very good reason, that is perfectly satisfactory. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to say "I am very sorry, but my doctor says I ought not to be here. Blessings on you. Carry on all night, but I am unable to do so". No one would have raised the slightest objection if that had been said. But we sat for the whole of the first all-night sitting without any reference that I can recall being made to why the Minister was absent. It was only during our second all-night sitting that his deputy—who did so very well for the Tory Government on that evening and the previous one—referred to the fact that the Minister was unwell. I had not known that he was unwell. Had I known, I might have had a little sympathy for him. It was rather odd that the reason should have been given at the last moment.

Mr. Orme: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was extraordinary that the Government took us through the night knowing very well that the Minister in charge of the Bill would not be there? It was the Government's responsibility, not ours.

Miss Richardson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We did not ask for two all-night sittings. We manfully put up with them—I use that term because I suppose one cannot say "personfully"—but I have a feeling that if there had not been all-night sittings, and if the hours had been more sensible, there might have been a bit more progress. Who knows? We all got tired. I do not think that this House legislates very well when it sits up all night and debates drag on. Arguments tend to get repetitious. That cannot be denied. Shorter debates are much to be preferred.
Various hon. Members have referred to the many parts of the Bill that are contentious and difficult to understand. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) made a rather slighting reference to the maternity grant, which is important. As he well knows, his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) tabled an amendment which was accepted by the Government—

Mr. Brotherton: I made no slighting reference. I merely referred to the amiable way in which the hon. Lady rambled round Albania and all points north, south, east and west, when discussing the maternity benefit.

Miss Richardson: It was necessary to show how much better other countries were doing as regards maternity benefit than we were. The point was relevant. Perhaps the hon. Member for Louth was being condescending about me and not about the grant.
We have also had an important debate on the EEC directive about equal treatment for women on social security matters. We were right to have that considerable debate, because that directive extends the social security right of men to women. We had a long exchange about the way in which the Government changed the words "equal treatment" to "similar treatment". We had to obtain the dictionary, as I recall, to discover how relative the word "similar" was to "equal". These are not trivial things. They are important.
Nobody denies that this Bill is important, but we want to see that each bit of it is scrutinised in the best possible way. Above all, we want to see that the regulations are brought forward properly


so that they can be debated and understood, not only by this House but by every man, woman and child who will be affected.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am tempted by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson)—though I will do my best to resist it—to discuss the more general question whether more timetable motions should be introduced in the House. I have always rejected that general proposition. It would be a mistake. The effect of having timetable motions on all Bills would reduce pressure on Governments and ensure that they did not have the same requirement to give the House an explanation of their policies. I hope that the House of Commons will never adopt that course. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and others hold the view that more timetable motions should be introduced, and I am sure they will continue to argue about it. But I trust that the decision will not be made to resort to them automatically. As everyone knows, occasionally guillotines have to be introduced.
Earlier there was some reference to detached observers. In a way, I suppose that I am a detached observer, because I have not played any part in this Bill. In that sense, I suppose that I am in exactly the same position as the Secretary of State who is in charge of the Bill. I understand that he has been a detached observer throughout all the proceedings. We welcome his maiden speech in the debate today. He may have made a few oblique references to the Bill on Second Reading, but I gather that in Committee he has had little, if anything, to say on the subject.
Considering the Secretary of State's speech today, I do not think that he has appreciated, in any sense whatever, our feelings about the significance of the Bill. One aspect of the Bill which I do not deny has already had some discussion is that which breaks the connection between the earnings and prices. We believe that to be a major change of a disastrous character. Some of us object to it all the more strongly because we remember the contribution made by an old comrade, Brian O'Malley, who was one of those primarily responsible for working out the way in which that link should be made.

It is a tragic state of affairs that a Bill should be brought forward that destroys that link.
It is a pity that the whole House, and those who are entering the Chamber now, was not present to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He set out the ways in which the Bill marked a serious departure in the whole of our development of social policy. He said that this was the first Bill for 400 years—to use his own description—that, in this area, had sought to take away the rights of working people and others.
I thought that that was a very daring challenge. I wondered whether it could be compared with what was done by the Conservative Government in 1934, when they introduced the measures which established the Unemployment Assistance Board of that time. But I think that my hon. Friend has an argument, in that they were regulations and not a Bill. My hon. Friend's expert knowledge on this subject is acknowledged in all parts of the House. If this is the first occasion on which rights of this character are taken away by such a Bill, all the more shocking is it that it should be done under the kind of procedures which the Government are proposing.
One of the aspects of the matter that has had a great historical part in discussions in the House was the introduction of the Unemployment Assistance Board in 1934. In a sense, that was the ancestor, or predecessor, of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. There have been variations and alterations since the Unemployment Assistance Board was introduced. It was detailed debates in the House of Commons—and when those detailed debates are derided great mistakes are made—that transformed the board introduced in 1934 into the very much superior and very much improved organisation, the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead says. None of us accepts that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is perfect. All of us have had cases involving it that we have wished to raise. None the less, I believe that those of us who have taken up many cases in our constituencies—I presume that this applies to pretty well all hon. Members —will have seen, especially in recent


years, how well the Supplementary Benefits Commission has sought to perform its independent task of trying to ensure that people entitled to benefits get their rights. It is that Commission and its present independence of position that the Bill will undermine.
At any rate, the removal of such a Commission as that, a Commission which plays a very big part in the lives of the poorest people of this country, is a matter which should be debated in detail. Every opportunity should be given, especially to Opposition Members who perhaps have experience in their constituencies of the detailed operation of the Commission and previous bodies. It is a tragedy for the country and for the proper conduct of its social services that this part of the Bill should not be subject to the most detailed discussion and to the possibilities of improvement in the process of the Committee stage.
In the same way, the child benefits scheme, to which references have been made, was one of the greatest reforms introduced by the previous Government, and already the present Government have been injuring the way in which it operates, in seeking to undermine it. In this Bill there should be full opportunity for the House of Commons to put that right.
At the beginning of his remarks, the Secretary of State said that he would not be introducing any major new clauses. I am not quite sure whether he made that comment as an aspersion on the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who did exactly that in the way in which he sought to operate under the guillotine. We are very glad to have the undertaking from the Secretary of State that no serious new clauses will be introduced by the Government. But we want to introduce new clauses that try to remedy some of this Bill's great deficiencies. Time for that is to be restricted, thanks to the Government's decision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) referred to a broadcast this morning of a speech delivered by Lord Thorneycroft. I am not sure whether I am entitled to quote Lord Thorneycroft. [AN HON. MEMBER: "No."] In that case, I have to spare the House the words of Lord Thorneycroft. I can well understand how Conservative Members are eager to be spared them.

Perhaps I may paraphrase what he said. The words in The Times are not quoted, so I am sure it is not out of order. Therefore, Conservative Members who are so eager not to hear the words of their chairman will have to listen to them. The Times states:
Lord Thorneycroft, of course, knows, and feels, that it is the compassionate side of this Government's politics that has been lacking in public, and that some Cabinet members are restive about that.
I do not know whether those who are restive are the wets or the hawks and I am not sure which are represented better on the Government Front Bench. However, I am sure that if any of the wets are removed, the Minister of State, who will be replying to the debate, will be eager to take their place.
There is another report of which I hope the House will take note before we pass from the motion, which appeared in The Observer yesterday. It is a most excellent report by Adam Raphael, that newspaper's political correspondent. He said:
This is government by lurch, screech, hunch and firing from the hip. No wonder we are in trouble.
I am sure that view can be well shared by all Conservative Members. This is the first Government in history to introduce a guillotine by firing from the hip. That is one of the many records that they are establishing.
I believe that right hon. and hon. Members as a whole must recognise that this measure will do great injury to the House of Commons as well as to multitudes of people throughout the country. It is a matter of great significance that never in our parliamentary history has a social security measure introduced by a Labour Government required a guillotine motion, whereas almost every socal security measure introduced by a Tory Government over the past 10 years has had to be subject to such a motion.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foot: No. I made an offer to the Minister to cut our time, but he did not want to accept it. I shall sit down in a moment.
It is wrong for the House to pass this motion in the disgraceful manner in which the Government propose.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) said that he would resist the temptation offered to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) to discuss the proposition that timetable motions were good in general and that we should have timetable motions on all measures. He having resisted that temptation, I, too, must resist it. However, I am tempted by it, because I assure the hon. Lady that she is in a minority not of one, but of at least two, because I have taken that view for a very long time. Debates having been guillotined become better debates. Speeches are briefer, arguments are crisper, issues are clarified and the quality of the debate is improved. However, I must resist the temptation to expand on that proposition.
If the right hon. Gentleman was not in favour of regular guillotines, in practice he sailed pretty close to the wind. He stands alone among Leaders of the House in having introduced five guillotine motions on one day. Having said what I did earlier, of course I approved of his action then. Indeed, my votes for those guillotine motions are among the very few votes that I cast in my final months in the Labour Government that I do not regret.
It is extremely bizarre that the right hon. Gentleman, with that record, should have been nominated by the Opposition to make the ritual protest against the motion before the House. He said that he was a stranger to the Bill. Indeed he is. He showed that by many of his remarks. For example, he praised the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and paid tribute to his knowledge of this subject. I agree. I think that his hon. Friend has great knowledge and understanding of these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman attacked the Bill because it proposes to abolish the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It escaped his notice that the hon. Member for Birkenhead agrees with the Government on that issue and voted with the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman did not have much to say against the guillotine. Curiously enough, that applies to all those who have contributed to the debate. The speeches that we have heard from Labour Members have, to some degree, been a repetition of Second Reading speeches and Committee arguments. I have heard little or no argument to the effect that the hours that remain for debate in Committee will be inadequate.
We have already had over 60 hours of debate in Committee. The timetable motion will provide for over 30 more hours. There will have been a total of between 90 hours and 100 hours available to debate the Bill. The hon. Member for Birkenhead says that we must have a proper debate on child benefit, a proper debate on the problems of the long-term unemployed and a proper debate on the powers of the new advisory committee. Of course we must. We can and we shall have such debates. There is ample opportunity this week and next week to debate these matters, but "ample" does not mean "unlimited". However, we shall have time to debate all these issues.
I shall deal with at least three of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). Many of his arguments were repeated by other Opposition Members. They concerned proposals contained in the Bill and were not directly concerned with the motion before us. However, they are important matters and I shall comment on them.
First, the regulations will be laid before the House immediately after Royal Assent. The right hon. Gentleman complains about that. Surely that is the usual procedure. We are debating primary legislation that will empower us to issue secondary legislation. The secondary legislation will follow the primary legislation. That is the normal procedure, and we shall follow it. What we have done is more than almost any Government have ever done to inform a Committee and a wider public of the proposals.
We have published a booklet of 120 pages. Those pages comprise the notes on clauses that are available to the Committee. The last 40 pages comprise an annex that describes our proposals in details on many of the regulations in so far as we have finalised our proposals.


They have been supplemented in recent weeks by answers, by correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman and by information given in Committee. We have leaned over backwards to give the maximum information about the regulations that we propose.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman talked about claimants' rights, as did so many other Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The Bill is essentially a measure to increase claimants' rights. It is essentially a Bill to allow claimants and their representatives to know where they stand. The publication of regulations in the way proposed in the Bill will set out clearly claimants' entitlements.

Mr. Field: There will be less entitlement.

Mr. Prentice: Entitlement in areas that have been grey until now will be made much clearer. What is more, there will be reinforcement by growing case law because of the new right to appeal to the commissioner. The whole system will be set out in a new and enlarged handbook that will be available to claimants and their representatives. The Bill is a measure that is designed to increase understanding and people's knowledge of their rights.

Mr. Field: There will be fewer rights.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the powers of the new advisory committee. We have not yet reached clause 8 in Committee, which deals with those powers. We could have reached clause 8 if Opposition speeches had been briefer. However, we shall reach it shortly and we shall be able to deal with it.
I put the debate in the context of the Bill itself. It is an 18-clause measure. Clause 1 is very controversial. The Government accept that. We recognised that the Opposition would want to debate clause 1 in depth, and so they did. The rest of the Bill is not fundamentally controversial. It may contain points of argument, but the Opposition did not divide in Committee on clause stand part on the other clauses—nor did they intend to. I should have been surprised if they had done.
The most important part of the Bill, apart from clause 1, is the part that reforms the system of supplementary benefit. The genesis of that was the consultative document issued by the previous Government. In that document, the key words were that it was a net nil cost package. The right hon. Gentleman told us that that did not commit Ministers, but it was the nature of the document that it was nil net cost and our Bill is nil net cost.
Why has there been such a long-winded Committee stage? It was because Opposition Members moved amendment after amendment to increase public spending. I have had some arithmetic done on the amendments. Of the amendments that Opposition Members have moved and that we discussed so far, the net cost would be £1,073 million a year—over £1 billion a year. If we add to that the amendments that remain to be discussed they would cost another £1½ billion, making £2½ billion a year altogether. In other words, the Opposition prolonged the debates in order to make promise after promise to spend other people's money in a way they know that they would not have done if they had been in government. It is all very well for Opposition Members to say that they were not committed to the nil net cost package, but they know that the public expenditure figures that they handed on to us did not contain a penny piece of provision for their amendments.
The timing of our operation is governed by the need to put the reforms into practice in time for the November uprating. As my right hon. Friend told the House earlier, we need five or six months in order to amend the individual claims of beneficiaries. It is a more complicated operation this year because it is in a new legal framework. Therefore, we need Royal Assent towards the end of May and the Bill must go to the other place for Second Reading before Easter. We need to come out of Committee by 6 March—in other words, Thursday of next week.
So far, we have debated five clauses out of 18 and rather less than two schedules out of five. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said that we had debated most of clauses 1 and 2, which are the largest and most controversial parts. That may be so, but


there is a great deal left and there is infinite scope for discussion on the new clauses because of the way in which the long title inevitably had to be drawn. The debate could have gone on in Committee week after week. In fact, we could have been out of Committee by now if the matter had been handled in a sensible and business-like way.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West says that there was no filibustering. How on earth does he explain the first two mornings when the Committee sat? There were two and a half hours of debate in order to decide the question that we would sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The debate was finished in that two and a half hours only because the Government Whip moved the closure. When he did that, there were shouts of protest from the Labour members on the Committee. On the second morning we made the decision to debate the clauses in order—1, 2 and 3—and to take the schedules in relation to the clauses to which they

referred. In other words, we decided to take schedule 1 after clause 2 and schedule 2 after clause 5. Surely, such matters could have been passed as a formality. In fact, we debated them for over two hours and, again, closure was moved on the motion of the Government Whip.

That sort of farce brings Parliament into disrepute. The disrepute becomes worse when the Opposition go through the ritualistic protest against the guillotine motion. In terms of time, this is a generous guillotine motion, but they are going through the usual ritual. The public outside are fed up with the ritualistic mock warfare in this place. They want real debates on matters that concern them. The Opposition should ask themselves what they are doing to advance the reputation of Parliament.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 252.

Division No. 195]
AYES
[10 pm


Adley, Robert
Butler, Hon Adam
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fry, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gardiner, George (Relgate)


Alison, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Amery, Rt Hon Jullan
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ancram, Michael
Channon, Paul
Glyn, Dr Alan


Arnold, Tom
Chapman, Sydney
Goodhart, Philip


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Victor


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Gorst, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gow, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clegg, Sir Walter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cockeram, Eric
Gray, Hamish


Bell, Sir Ronald
Cope,John
Greenway, Harry


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick
Grieve, Percy


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Corrle, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Best, Keith
Cranborne, Viscount
Grist, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Dorrell, Stephen
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Blackburn, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Blaker, Peter
Dover, Denshore
Hampson, Dr Keith


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hannam, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hastings, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Havers,Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Paul


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eggar, Timothy
Hawksley, Warren


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliott, Sir William
Hayhoe, Barney


Bright, Graham
Eyre, Reginald
Heddle, John


Brinton, Tim
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Henderson, Barry


Brittan, Leon
Fairgrieve, Russell
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Hicks, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Farr, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brotherton, Michael
Fell, Anthony
Hill, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hooson, Tom


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Budgen, Nick
Forman, Nigel
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Burden, F. A.
Fox, Marcus
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butcher, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Hurd, Hon Douglas




Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Speed, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Speller, Tony


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Mudd, David
Spence, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Christopher
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Myles, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neale, Gerrard
Sproat, Iain


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin


Kimball, Marcus
Nelson, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom
Neubert, Michael
Stanley, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Newton, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Mrs Jill
Normanton, Tom
Stevens, Martin


Knox, David
Nott, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lamont, Norman
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Lang, Ian
Osborn, John
Stokes, John


Latham, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Tapsell, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Lee, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Tebbit, Norman


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Parris, Matthew
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Thompson, Donald


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Loveridge, John
Percival, Sir Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Luce, Richard
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Lyell, Nicholas
Pink, R. Bonner
Trippier, David


McCrindle, Robert
Pollock, Alexander
Trotter, Neville


Macfarlane, Neil
Porter, George
van Straubenzee, W. R.


MacGregor, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Price, David (Eastleign)
Waddington, David


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, John


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Waldegrave, Hon William


McQuarrie, Albert
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Madel, David
Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Major, John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Marland, Paul
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waller, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Renton, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Mates, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Watson, John


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mawby, Ray
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wheeler, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mayhew, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh
Whitney, Raymond


Mellor, David
Rost, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Scott, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Monro, Hector
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Montgomery, Fergus
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Moore, John
Silvester, Fred
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Morgan, Geraint
Sims, Roger





NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Alton, David
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian
Deakins, Eric


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis
Dempsey, James


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dixon, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cartwright, John
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Coleman, Donald
Dubs, Alfred


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Conlan, Bernard
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin F.
Dunnett, Jack


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cowans, Harry
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Eadie, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Crowther, J. S.
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
English, Michael


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dalyell, Tam
Ennals, Rt Hon David




Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Ewing, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Rooker, J. W.


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Field, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fitch, Alan
McElhone, Frank
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ryman, John


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sandelson, Neville


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKelvey, William
Sever, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sheerman, Barry


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Forrester, John
McMahon, Andrew
Short, Mrs Renée


Foster, Derek
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Foulkes, George
McNally, Thomas
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McNamara, Kevin
Silverman, Julius


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth
Soley, Clive


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)
Spearing, Nigel


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Golding, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Stallard, A. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stoddart, David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maxton, John
Stolt, Roger


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Haynes, Frank
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Tilley, John


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Torney, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Newens, Stanley
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Homewood, William
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
O'Neill, Martin
Watkins, David


Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Park, George
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Janner, Hon Greville
Parry, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Penhaligon, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Price, Christopher (Lewlsham West)
Winnick, David


Kerr, Russell
Race, Reg
Woodall, Alec


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Radlce, Giles
Woolmer, Kenneth


Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lambie, David
Richardson, Jo
Wright, Sheila


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normamon)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Lamond, James
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leighton, Ronald
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Mr. George Morton and


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, George
Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 6th March 1980.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 6th March may continue until 11 pm whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 7th March 1980.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the


Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of Proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private Business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under


this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(2) If on allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall he required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying of supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on

any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Social Security Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

BICYCLES (CARRIAGE BY RAIL)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: In approaching the British Rail ban on bicycles on commuter trains that was arbitrarily introduced in an unprecedented way on 2 January after three weeks' notice, I should make it plain that the Minister of Transport and his Department are absolved from any blame.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I am glad to see on the Front Bench this evening, has told me that he supports cycling and the interests of cycling and hopes that British Rail will find a way to making more flexible arrangements. However, I must tell the Minister that by all accounts British Rail's new proposals are even more untenable than its previous proposals and that having made one bad mistake it seems intent on making matters worse.
I know that the Minister does not wish to sidestep the issues raised in this debate by reminding the House that the running of British Rail is not for him but for Sir Peter Parker. In a letter written by the Minister to the British Cycling Bureau, he explained his position. He said that it was his firm policy
not to intervene in the day-to-day management of the railway. However as you may know I wrote to Sir Peter Parker last week"—
the letter was dated 6 February—
to draw his attention to the many representations which we have received and to ask him to consider whether scope exists for a more flexible or staggered application of the plan.
I am not sure what the Minister means by "staggered application", but that is what he said.
What then happened was that negotiations started. The Minister will be mindful that he has a transport programme and policy and that he makes substantial funds available to British Rail as part of the overall transport programme. I would ask the Minister to consider leaning more than just a little on the chairman of British Rail to inspire

him and his management colleagues to look at things in a slightly different light.
The Minister will wish to remain satisfied that the country is being properly serviced by the railways and that the board is efficiently run. Of course, the Minister will not forget that he retains the ultimate sanction of appointing and dismissing the chairman and the board of British Rail.
The issues can be summarised thus. Until 1977 bikes were carried on all trains in the guard's van at half fare. This proved such a deterrent that the number of cyclists using this facility dwindled. After persistent lobbying from cycling organisations and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and myself, British Rail agreed to an experiment that would allow the carriage of cycles free for three months. That was a commercial, not a charitable, decision and was based on the fact that carrying bikes free would encourage more people to use the railways. Within a few months British Rail admitted that the scheme was an unqualified success. It was made a permanent feature that has run since that time.
The arrangement ran fairly smoothly until January this year. There was a problem with high-speed trains, and I gather that there was a threatened move by Southern region last June to ban the carriage of cycles on its commuter trains However, that was scotched before British Rail could put the plan into operation.
Suddenly, at only three weeks' notice—and it got away with it this time—British Rail arbitrarily banned bikes on all commuter trains arriving at or leaving central London at up to 10 am and on trains leaving or coming into the capital between 4 pm and 7 pm. One can imagine that that had a far wider effect that a ban of two or three hours. That prohibition affected all trains coming into or leaving the capital. In effect, this has ended the activities of those who wish to travel from home to work by bike and discriminated against those who moved out to the suburbs knowing that they could use a bicycle to commute.
British Rail has lost income. At a time of criticism of the nationalised industries and public expenditure, it is strange to reduce income in this way. Can one think of a more absurd decision than to


discontinue something which, on British Rail's own admission, was too successful? Is anything more short-sighted than to drive commuters back on to the road to waste energy and increase traffic congestion?
Earlier today, we debated the future energy needs of this country. This morning, I received in the post a letter dated 21 February from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who has been running a crusade to conserve energy. He wrote:
In a world which is still heavily dependent on oil to meet its energy needs this means that conservation, the more efficient use of oil and the development of alternative energy sources are essential if we are not to suffer progressive and serious environmental damage (with falling standards of living and increasing unemployment) in the future.
That was a view, independent of this railway issue, from a Minister who was complaining that we should be ever vigilant about the need to conserve energy. This has clearly not been heeded by British Rail.
What was British Rail's response to the energy crisis? It immediately discriminated against the very people who are prepared to use their own energy to get to and from work, using unused space in the public transport system. That discrimination has been extended far beyond the powers of British Rail. This evening the cycling lobby, many of whose members are in the Strangers' Gallery, were told that they could not come here with their safety straps or badges but that they had to take them off. Some cyclists were told that they had to move their bikes away from parking spaces near the Palace of Westminster because it lowered the tone of the area. So discrimination is not practised only by British Rail.
British Rail's argument is that its new train, the 508, has no room for bikes and that with 17 per cent. less accommodation the van in the centre of the train must remain available for overflow capacity. It is a condemnation of British Rail that those who are to pay the full fare in future if they do not get a seat will have to travel like cattle in the guard's van.
Are our modern commuter trains so inadequately designed that British Rail can do no better than push people into the guard's van? Why has not British Rail responded to the suggestion by the

cycling organisations that, with very little expense, it could modify the 508 and that in particular it could remove the seats from behind each driver's compartment and substitute a pressed metal floor which allows access for motor and controls and also forms a flexible space for cycles, luggage and prams, as well as several wooden seats attached to the wall, as on Continental trains? That space would be used by sitting or standing passengers and in peak hours would be available for a limited number of cycles.
If there is a case for restricting the use of the 508, why has the ban been extended to all commuter trains when only a small percentage are of the new design? The correspondence from British Rail is inconclusive and unconvincing. In a letter written to the British Cycling Bureau on 25 January, a Mr. Gallagher says:
I am afraid it has been necessary for a ban to be placed on the carriage of bicycles during peak periods, because of the problems we have been experiencing on various lines and services involving the loading and off-loading of bicycles. Our main purpose is to convey as many passengers as possible into and out of London with the least possible delay and inconvenience. Experience has indicated that bicycle carriage has tended to detract from this purpose and therefore we decided that a ban was necessary.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in many instances bicycles can be got on and off trains far easier than passengers can get their luggage on and off and that some items of luggage take up almost as much space as bicycles? In fact, British Rail has not so far restricted people carrying luggage on those trains.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming on to say that the strange thing about British Rail is that it has not discriminated against prams, which take up more space than bicycles and are carried free, and it still allows the carriage at half fare of motor cycles, which take up an enormous amount of room. Clearly, there is little logic in its thinking.
The real problem is the basis of the complaints to British Rail. British Rail has persistently refused to disclose details of the complaints that have been made of it. It has not told us how many complaints it has received or the nature of those complaints. It has dealt with this matter only in the most general


terms. This morning, at a meeting attended by cycling organisations, British Rail at last confessed that the Southern Region had received 66 letters. However, when pressed it had to confess that 60 letters were in favour of bicycles and only six were against.
There are allegations that cyclists pedal along platforms in the rush hour. Can one imagine anyone doing that and surviving? Perhaps it is a kind of new feat. Perhaps one does not actually see a person doing it. Perhaps it is a new phenomenon, just like the streakers were a few years ago.
British Rail says that there are complaints of trains being delayed while cyclists load their bikes into the guard's van. Investigations carried out by such responsible bodies as Friends of the Earth and the London Cycling Campaign seem to suggest that the only complaints received are not about trains delayed by bikes but about trains that do not run at all and which are cancelled day after day without any prior warning.
There are purported complaints that bikes cause congestion at the barriers, yet we can get no information about that. We do not know how many cyclists there were and who complained. British Rail has produced no evidence or statistics to support its views. It has not explained any arguments. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to get that information and to publish it in the Official Report in answer to questions that I shall be tabling tomorrow on that point.
There is no point in having a Bill, which is passing through the House at present, compelling local authorities to practise more open government and to release information if nationalised industries continue to operate behind a veil of secrecy.
In response to all this disquiet, British Rail has now come up with a series of half-baked proposals which I believe will make matters 10 times worse. I should like to deal with them briefly. Instead of a total ban on commuter trains, it is now proposing that the ban will apply only to trains arriving at the London terminals, during two two-hour periods, namely, between 7.45 a.m. and 9.45 a.m. and in the evening from 4.30 to 6.30. Whether the ban should apply

will be left to the regional managers, who are given a complete discretion. On the other hand, while British Rail says that it will shorten the banned hours, it is widening the areas in which the discretion applies, and the ban will go far further than the present ban has applied up to now. There is nothing to stop regional managers extending it far beyond Reading or Horsham in the south, Gravesend or Chelmsford in the east or Bedford and Hitchin in the north. Surely, a cyclist taking his bike against the flow will cause far more obstruction than a bike travelling with the flow.
In the London Midland region and the Western region, the ban is to be lifted. Cyclists can use all commuter trains, but will be charged £2·50 a week for the privilege. The argument for that charge is that it will discourage a frivolous approach to the facility. But who in his right mind would wish frivolously to bring a bicycle into London during the rush hour?
To make matters even more confusing and even less explicable, British Rail has made one concession, and that is with regard to cross-boundary journeys. If a cyclist buys a ticket from Guildford to Watford, he is allowed to take his bicycle with him on a commuter train into London—although his neighbour is not allowed to do so if he is stopping in London—and then go out from another station to Watford, because he is travelling between regions. The Minister must agree that there can be little logic in that.
There is little logic in any of the proposals. They have been dreamt up by a bureaucracy committed to creating the maximum muddle. If they are implemented, they must result in frayed tempers and heated arguments as to what is applicable and where, on which train, and for whom. People will buy tickets to get them out of one region and into another. Cyclists will struggle against the flow of rush-hour passengers and they will be discriminated against on the Eastern region. British Rail has achieved in these proposals a guarantee for total confusion at some time and general confusion for the rest of the time.
As chairman of the all-party Friends of Cycling, an organisation with which I am privileged to be involved, I should like to remind the House that there are now some 50 cycling Members, all of whom


expressed concern when they met representatives of British Rail that some improvements should take place. All that British Rail has done since our meeting is to dream up a cock-eyed, unworkable scheme for no apparent reason.
Will the Minister, therefore, help to relieve the misery of commuter travellers by ensuring that the simple arrangements which worked so well for so long are restored? The Government give British Rail £500 million of public subsidy in the form of a public service obligation grant, which is specifically designed to operate services that are not otherwise viable. Surely, with some of that money British Rail can improve its present rolling stock and allow for the improvement of the 508.
Bike travelling is becoming more and more a normal way of getting about in heavily congested urban areas. One cannot disregard the fact that in 1970 only 500,000 bikes were sold, while last year 1·5 million bicycles were sold. The Minister cannot deny that the number of bicycles in London between 1977 and 1979 increased by 42 per cent. No one can disregard the need to conserve fuel or the cost of it.
For those and many other reasons, British Rail must be leant on heavily by the Minister, because its proposals are increasingly untenable. They are not good for British Rail, they are not good for its customers, they are not good for the Government, and, above all, they are not good for the cycling public.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on having the good fortune to be able to initiate the Adjournment debate on this subject. I am not surprised that he has raised the subject. I expected that he would do so at the earliest possible opportunity, because of his well-known interest in cycling. I share his concern, as do a number of other right hon. and hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has been present throughout the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) are also present. We have the unusual spectacle of there being four Ministers

present for an Adjournment debate, which indicates that it has aroused great interest.
I stress that the Government have no responsibility for the day-to-day management of the railways. We have to leave management decisions in the last resort to the board and to line management. Nevertheless, we obviously take a close interest in matters of this kind. It has brought a large number of representations to the Ministry of Transport. My right hon. Friend the Minister has written to Sir Peter Parker expressing his concern and asking whether arrangements can be made to make the proposals for bicycles more flexible and suitable to the needs of commuters.
The board has produced, I hope in response to my right hon. Friend's letter, some new proposals which are intended to be concessionary. They are for consultation and are an attempt to agree with the cycling interests arrangements that are consistent with the interests of commuters as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waver-tree is correct when he says that the free carriage of bicycles was first introduced in 1977. I agree and the board agrees that that has been a great success. It has helped to contribute to the growth in revenue from off-peak travel in recent years. The board's guess—it is only a guess—is that free carriage of bicycles over the network is now generating about £1 million per annum extra passenger revenue.
For this reason, the board remains firmly committed to continuing this concession for most of its travellers. On 90 per cent. of the trains outside the commuter areas concerned, there is no threat to the present arrangements and the free concessions will be available, come what may, on over 14,000 of the 16,000 trains that the board runs daily.
The problem has arisen in the London and South-Eastern area and on commuter services, where the board had not anticipated the rapid increase in the number of commuters using their bicycles to get to and from work.
In the Department of Transport and the Department of Energy, the increased use of bicycles for travel to and from work is by no means an unwelcome development. But British Rail has looked


at this and has formed the opinion that it is giving rise to some difficulties in the operating of its trains. It says that complaints have been received about the loading and unloading of bicycles on trains, relays at ticket barriers, and so on.
Matters were brought to a head by the design of the new rolling stock which has come into service on Southern region routes, where there is no accommodation that is suitable, in the board's opinion, to accommodate bicycles.
The House is aware that there are considerable problems of all kinds with the commuter services in London and the South-East. The board has to strive to improve the service to the passengers and to meet the needs of the passengers as a whole, including varying groups. It was, the board assures us, a desire on its part to make sure that other commuters were not being inconvenienced by cycles that led it to contemplate changes.
That was the board's opinion, and it made the announcement which has so incensed my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree and a number of other people. The board took the view that, in order to avoid confusion, a single set of regulations should apply to the busiest part of the London commuter area. In retrospect, the board would probably agree that the emphasis on having a single set of regulations for the entire commuter area, regardless of the form of rolling stock in use, was a mistake. After representations, the board has reconsidered the matter.
The board has now put forward new proposals. Once more, I have to emphasise that these are the board's proposals; they are not the Government's proposals, although the Government welcome the fact that the board has put forward some new suggestions and is open to consultation about them. The board is indeed consulting about them. I am told that the board consulted cycling interests today and had a preliminary discussion. I am told that a further meeting is arranged for 10 March in order to discuss the final form of the new scheme.
Perhaps I should put on record the details of the new proposals put forward today, as given to me by the board.

First, the ban will be lifted completely on the London, Midland and Western regions and on Eastern region services into King's Cross. However, to smooth out demand and to encourage cyclists who do not need to travel by train during the rush hour to travel at other, less busy times, the board feels that it will probably be necessary to introduce a charge for the carriage of bicycles during the peak period.
Secondly, on Southern region and Eastern region services into Liverpool Street, the board feels that travelling conditions are already too poor and the services too unsatisfactory for it to permit the carriage of bicycles without restriction. The ban on the carriage of bicycles on these services during the peak hours will therefore remain, although the definition of exactly what constitutes the peak hours will be drawn more tightly to ensure that the ban applies only when absolutely necessary. Cycles will continue to be carried free of charge on these services at off-peak periods and at weekends.
Thirdly, the board also feels that it must retain the ban on the carriage of bicycles on new rolling stock without a guard's van during the peak hours, because to do otherwise would cause a great deal of inconvenience, in its opinion, to its other passengers. But again the peak hours will be kept to the minimum possible and the free carriage of bicycles will continue at off-peak times.
Fourthly, the board will also be examining with the cycling associations the designs of the various folding bicycles on the market to see which of them it can allow to be carried in the passenger compartment as hand luggage, thereby exempting them from the restrictions. The board very much hopes that it will prove possible to extend this to a wider range of folding bicycles than at present.
In future, British Railways will also consider how best to exempt from these regulations long-distance travellers with bicycles who have to cross London during the peak period. The free carriage of bicycles was originally introduced to stimulate leisure travel and the board naturally does not wish the regulations which apply to commuter services to deter long-distance travellers from taking full advantage of this concession. Finally,


British Rail is providing more cycle storage space free of charge at stations where this is possible or necessary.
Those are the proposals that the board has put forward today to the cycling associations for discussion. I am assured that they are for discussion and consultation. I therefore trust that the board will take into account what the associations have put to it today and the points that my hon. Friend made in his initial reaction to the proposals.
I urge my hon. Friend and others to give the proposals a fair chance and not to rush to complete condemnation. I do not believe that they can be said to be making matters worse. Imperfect they may be in my hon. Friend's judgment, but they are in response to pressure and are an attempt to introduce more flexibility into the system and shorten the hours during which there are restrictions.
As my hon. Friend said, the new proposals are complicated. That is inevitable. It was, with hindsight, probably a mistake that British Rail went for one simple regulation to cover the whole commuter area. However, it is probably right to try to find some way of matching up the needs of cyclists with a particular form of stock and the special needs of a service.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) pressed the Minister hard to have published the information that British Railways received about the nuisance. Will the Minister give us an undertaking that the correspondence that British Rail received complaining about this matter will be published, because I do not think that anyone is yet convinced that British Rail has any evidence that a nuisance has been caused?

Mr. Clarke: We cannot produce British Rail documents and correspondence or force it to publish. The role of Ministers vis-a-vis British Railways on this and other issues is not like that. It is for British Rail to answer the representations and to produce what evidence it thinks is appropriate to answer allegations.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: I have had some correspondence with Southern region on this matter, and my hon. and learned

Friend has replied to letters from me regarding complaints from my cyclist commuters into London. Over the months when I have complained to British Rail about long delays to the Medway area, not once has it put forward the excuse that those delays were occasioned by cyclists holding up trains at different stations.

Mr. Clarke: To be fair to British Rail, I do not think that it blames the poor performance of services in Kent on cyclists. However, the delays to services are being referred by my right hon. Friend to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and we look forward to a full investigation of all the difficulties and sometimes inadequacies of commuter services.
The argument of British Rail, as I understand it, is that on occasion an additional cause of late departure is the delay in loading bicycles. Hon. Members who wish to press British Rail for more evidence must direct their inquiries to the board.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister will be aware that, as the former Member of Parliament for Acton with the present Member, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, I spent some time pressing the board for information on this matter. Does he agree that the Government have a locus in relation to energy saving and the cost of transport? As I indicated to Sir Peter Parker, it may well be that future modifications and designs of stock will specifically allow for cycle space, especially hooks in the ceiling such as there used to be on the original Mk I stock.

Mr. Clarke: As I suggested, in general terms the Government look favourably on the increased use of bicycles. It is a healthy form of exercise as well as being considered more seriously as an energy-saving form of transport. I see nothing wrong with the increased use of bicycles for commuting to London and other large cities. However, the role of the Government vis-a-vis British Rail is clear. We are not involved in the day-to-day management of British Rail and we must not seek to usurp that day-to-day management role, even in response to strong political pressure of the kind we currently face.
We are aware of the concern and we share it. My right hon. Friend has been in touch with the chairman of the board and we welcome the fresh proposals that have come forward. They are still subject to consultation and have not been finalised. The fact that these proposals have almost immediately produced a debate and some unfavourable reaction in the Chamber will, I am sure, lead British Rail to consider what has been

said and to look again at the proposals. If it can produce anything that further facilitates the carriage of bicycles on trains, I assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I will welcome anything that can be done to accommodate this traffic.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.